The Hard Interchange Business Case Value for Money Statement · Figure 3.6 – First floor of the...

The Hard Interchange Business Case Value for Money Statement Portsmouth City Council

19 May 2014

The Hard Interchange Business Case Value for Money Statement

Atkins The Hard Interchange Business Case – Value for Money Statement – 19 May 2014

Notice

This document and its contents have been prepared and are intended solely for Portsmouth City Council’s information and use in relation to the Hard Interchange scheme.

Atkins Limited assumes no responsibility to any other party in respect of or arising out of or in connection with this document and/or its contents.

This document has 65 pages including the cover.

Document history

Job number: Document ref:

Revision Purpose description Originated Checked Reviewed Authorised Date

Rev 1.0 Submission DW EN AC AC 19/05/04

Client signoff

Client Portsmouth City Council

Project The Hard interchange

Document title Business Case Value for Money Statement

Job no. 5127475

Copy no.

Document reference



Table of contents

Chapter Pages

Executive summary i

1. Introduction 1

The Hard Interchange 1

Background to the Value for Money Statement 2

Purpose of this report 4

Supporting documentation and evidence 4

Structure of this report 5

2. The Hard Interchange scheme 7 Scheme design overview 7

Strategic importance of the scheme 11

Deliverability 15

3. Benefit-cost ratio 17 Introduction 17

Appraisal scheme costs 17

Appraisal method 19

Impacts on the economy 21

Impacts on the environment 28

Social impacts 31

Analysis of monetised costs and benefits 38

4. Qualitative impacts 39

Introduction 39

Impact to the environment 39

Social-distributional impact 42

5. Strategic benefits 48 Introduction 48

Strategic economic impact 48

6. Value for Money assessment 52 Benefit cost ratio 52

Qualitative assessment 52

Strategic impact assessment 52

The Appraisal summary table 53

Key risks and sensitivities 53

Value for Money 53

Tables Table 1.1 – Key objectives of the Hard Interchange scheme 2 Table 1.2 – Solent LTB Assurance Framework steps 1 -6 2 Table 1.3 – Solent LTB Assurance Framework steps 7 - 14 3 Table 2.1 – Proposed schedule of facilities 9 Table 2.2 – The role of The Hard in delivering the Solent Strategic Economic Plan 14 Table 3.1 – Estimated scheme costs in 2014 prices 17 Table 3.2 – Breakdown of optimism bias and mitigation 18 Table 3.3 – Spend profile of real costs in 2010 prices 19 Table 3.4 – Cost breakdown by source of expenditure in 2010 prices 19 Table 3.5 – Public Accounts Table 19 Table 3.6 Pedestrian journey time changes as a result of proposed interchange development 21 Table 3.7 – Description of cyclist behaviour by route 23 Table 3.8 - Cycle journey time changes as a result of proposed interchange development 23



Table 3.9 – Segmented values of bus quality interventions (DfT) 24 Table 3.10 – Segmented values of bus quality interventions (DfT) 25 Table 3.11 – Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE) 27 Table 3.12 - Predicted Road Traffic Basic Noise Levels and Short-Term and Long-Term Impacts, LA10,18Hr (dB) 28 Table 3.13 Relevant local air quality criteria 29 Table 3.14 Traffic data for use in the air quality and greenhouse gases assessment 30 Table 3.15 Results summary of the assessment of greenhouse gasses 31 Table 3.16 PERS audit of links 34 Table 3.17 PERS audit of spaces 34 Table 3.18 AMCB table 38 Table 4.1 Summary of impacts to townscape 40 Table 4.2 Summary of impacts to historic environment 41 Table 4.3 Assessment of personal security indicators 45 Table 5.1 Hard Masterplan Area development sites and job creation 50 Table 5.2 GVA created through the Hard Masterplan Area developments 51

Figures Figure 2.1 – Planning application boundary 8 Figure 2.2 – Scheme design for the Hard Interchange 9 Figure 3.1 – Existing layout cycle journey time routes 22 Figure 3.2 - Proposed layout cycle journey time routes 23 Figure 3.3 – Existing layout – on-site PERS audit zones 33 Figure 3.4 – Proposed layout – Desktop PERS audit zones 34 Figure 3.5 – Existing National Express waiting facilities 35 Figure 3.6 – First floor of the interchange building 36 Figure 3.7 – Cafe adjacent to the highway 36 Figure 3.8 – Railings and shelter surrounding the site 36 Figure 3.9 – Views and permeability of the proposed interchange building 37 Figure 3.10 – Physical barriers to views have been removed 37 Figure 4.1 – Street begging at the Hard Interchange 42 Figure 4.2 – Existing pedestrian guardrail 46 Figure 4.3 – The internal vehicular access road 46



Appendices

A The Hard Supplementary Planning Document

B Local Major Transport Scheme Fund - Project Application Form

C Movement Analysis Study

D User Questionnaire Survey

E Cycle and Pedestrian Journey Times Technical Notes

F Environmental Scoping Report

G Letters of support

H Outturn Scheme Costs

I Letter from 151 Officer

J Programme

K Appraisal scheme costs

L QRA and Risk Register

M Transfer Penalty Calculations

N Accidents

O Servicing and delivery statement

P PERS Assessment

Q Letter of support from community warden

R Letter of support from Equalities Advisor

S Appraisal Summary Table


Atkins The Hard Interchange Business Case – Value for Money Statement – 19 May 2014 i

Executive summary

The Hard Interchange

The Hard Interchange scheme is based on proposals set out in The Hard Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (Adopted 2010, Updated 2012), which involves replacing the existing bus interchange at The Hard, and improving the public realm, wayfinding and cycle parking facilities (Appendix A).

The area currently functions as a key city and Solent gateway and public transport interchange but is also an area of historic and visual interest enjoyed by many residents and visitors every year. In recent years, however, the area has suffered considerable decline and the existing bus interchange is considerably dated. It is poorly designed in terms of passenger accessibility and acts as a barrier to pedestrians and cyclists exiting the railway station and ferry terminals.

Portsmouth City Council (PCC), as landowner, has recognised that in order to kick-start the development of the Hard Masterplan Area and ensure its contribution to delivering the Solent Strategic Economic Plan, public sector investment is required to plan, design and construct a new public transport interchange. The scheme proposals involve improved:

• Bus interchange layout – a revised layout to provide sufficient bus stops and stands to meet future demands;

• Pedestrian realm and public space – improving the experience for pedestrians in and around the interchange;

• Cycling facilities and movement – improving the experience for cyclists;

• Wayfinding - Introducing an enhanced lighting scheme and replacing signage with a coordinated scheme, which complements the PCC wayfinding strategy; and

• Vehicle access - clear access into the bus interchange for taxis and delivery vehicles (accessing the railway station) and a taxi waiting area that is safe for pedestrians to use.

The scheme will provide a safe and efficient method of passenger interchange between several modes of transport, allowing for improved connectivity to key destinations such as Gunwharf Quays and the Historic Dockyard, but also to the potential mixed use regeneration areas in the vicinity.

Evidence from developers and the business community indicate that a high quality environment is needed to unlock nearby development at identified opportunity sites. The developments present an opportunity to strengthen the visitor economy within Portsmouth. Furthermore, they provide opportunities to stimulate the local supply chain and support the provision for Higher Education students within Portsmouth. The Hard Interchange scheme should not therefore be considered solely as a transport scheme, expected to provide transport-user benefits. Instead, the building of the new interchange will act as the catalyst for the delivery of a range of mixed use developments including approximately:

• 15,000m2 of office space;

• 3000m2 of retails space;

• 350 residential dwellings; and

• 600 hotel and student accommodation rooms.

Purpose of the report In light of the advice provided by the DfT, LTB and LEP, this report provides the Business Case Value for Money (VfM) statement in support of the Hard Interchange scheme application for funding on behalf of PCC. The report seeks to present how the Hard Interchange scheme will have a significant positive benefit in both a local and regional context.

Economic appraisal

The Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) provides an estimate of how the costs of a scheme relate to the value of monetised benefits that the scheme creates. The BCR has been assessed within a WebTAG compliant framework. Appraisal scheme costs have been used alongside scheme benefits to produce an overall BCR.


Atkins The Hard Interchange Business Case – Value for Money Statement – 19 May 2014 ii

Appraisal scheme costs A robust approach to the estimation of scheme costs has been developed by Quantity Surveyors working in partnership with the Architect and PCC, and is based on the RIBA Stage 3 design of the scheme.

The scheme cost, including preparation, construction and supervision, is estimated to be £6.08million (2014 prices). A register of possible risks which could occur throughout the planning, design, construction and operation of the Hard Interchange has been used to determine a mean Quantified Risk of £1.31 million, giving a risk adjusted cost of £7.4 million.

The level of optimism bias (OB) applied to the scheme cost is £1.1 million. Optimism Bias relates to the demonstrated and systematic tendency for project appraisers to be overly optimistic when considering project benefits and costs.

Impacts on the Economy The scheme focuses primarily on improving access in and around the interchange site, without a significant anticipated impact on vehicle journey time and delay. As a result, a strategic modal model was considered inappropriate for calculating user benefits. Instead, a WebTAG compliant adaptation of TfL’s Valuing Urban Realm Toolkit (VUR Toolkit) has been applied in order to capture and quantify the economic impact through estimating benefits to pedestrian and cycle journey times.

Pedestrian journey time Changes in pedestrian journey time (to and from the various onward modes represented in the interchange) resulting from the proposed scheme are a primary source of estimating monetised transport benefits. An annualised weekday user travel time reduction of 529 days has been estimated as a benefit of the scheme. The most significant journey time savings are as a result of the relocation of the bus waiting area in relation to the rail station and ferry terminal entrance.

Cycling journey time Cycle journey time is one measure of economic benefits generated from active travel modes as a result of a transport intervention. The volumes of cyclists on each route were taken from the 2013 Movement Analysis study surveys. Applying these volumes to the measured journey times resulted in the calculation of Annualised Travel Time (in days) for cyclists at the existing interchange. Journey times were annualised using a factor of 253 to convert hourly/daily benefits to annual benefits based on the five-day working week in order to capture the impact of journey time change on weekday travel. This results in an annualised weekday user travel time reduction of 18 days and an associated increase in the economic value of the project benefits.

Noise The assessment indicates that the impacts arising from changes in road traffic noise and vibration on the local road traffic network are not expected to exceed DMRB threshold criteria. On The Hard main road, noise changes are not expected to exceed DMRB threshold values. Traffic Flows on The Hard Interchange access and egress roads are not predicted to result in changes in noise exceeding DMRB threshold values.

Greenhouse gases The scheme will slightly increase the use of Heavy Duty Vehicles on the for all road links with the exception of the Clock southbound. On this basis, further assessment was undertaken to determine the change in emissions. Overall the scheme would increase greenhouse gas emissions which over a 60 year period would account for a cost of £14,305 to the scheme.

Air quality With regard to air quality, the proposed scheme will not affect beneficially or adversely affect local air quality. None of the road links, with the exception of the interchange access road, have a change in daily traffic flow of above 5%. The flow on this road is expected to change by 5.6% from 1,840 to only 1,940 AADT, which is well below the threshold of 5,000 AADT set by the Environmental Protection UK which sets out the threshold for significant air quality change.

Accidents Within the Interchange site itself, the operation of the bus layout has been designed to remove conflict between pedestrians, cyclists and buses. The reduced conflict between users significantly lowers the opportunity for accidents within the site itself. The overall impact of accident levels is considered to be moderate beneficial.


Atkins The Hard Interchange Business Case – Value for Money Statement – 19 May 2014 iii

PERS assessment A Pedestrian Environment Review System (PERS) Audit was undertaken to ascertain the status of the pedestrian environment in May 2013. The findings of the PERS audit predicts that overall, the pedestrian environment will improve as a result of the proposed development. Effective width of footways, lighting, colour contrast, personal security and surface quality are generally predicted to be greatly improved following redevelopment of links. Similarly the sense of place, safety and comfort are all likely to improve when considering the interchange as a public space.

Positive economic impacts were therefore predicted to occur as a result of quantified improvements to the pedestrian environment. The PERS analysis was input to the VUR toolkit in order to quantify the changes in user experience of the public realm as a monetised benefit. Over the 60 year appraisal period (with benefits capped after 15 years) the quantified benefit was calculated as £7.3 million PV.

Added to the journey time benefits, this creates a PVB of £12.9 million (2010 prices and values) is generated by the new interchange design. In comparison to the PVC of £8.5 million (2010 prices and values), represents a Net Present Value (NPV) of £4.4 million (2010 prices and values) and a BCR of 1.5:1.

Visual amenity Throughout consultation for the Hard masterplan, a repeated message given by the respondents was that the area and interchange projects a “shabby reputation”. In the interchange specifically, this reputation is as a result of the outdated and unmaintained interchange building, unattractive retail adjacent to the highway, caging and shelters along the perimeter of the site which restrict views, guard railing and barriers.

Consultation with local business owners has highlighted that the visual environment of the interchange site inhibits the area’s attractiveness to visitors and customers. This results in not just a reduction in potential consumer spending in the area, but also negatively impacts on land values affecting landowners and potential developers.

Qualitative impacts

Townscape The townscape assessment has been undertaken using the visualisations of new building and plans of the layout produced by Atkins. The results of the townscape assessment indicate that impacts range from neutral to moderate beneficial. Overall the scheme is considered to fit well into its surroundings and create a stronger sense of space than currently provided by the existing travel interchange. In terms of townscape, the overall appraisal is considered to be slight beneficial to moderate beneficial.

Historic environment The historic environment assessment has been undertaken using the visualisations of the new building and plans of the layout produced by Atkins. There are three Key Historic Environmental Resources (KHERs) which had the potential to be affected by the scheme and in the case of each KHER, the assessment of impacts has been judged to be slight beneficial. Therefore, in terms of Historic Environment, the overall appraisal is considered to be slight beneficial.

Biodiversity The biodiversity aspect considers the effects of the proposed scheme on biodiversity and earth heritage (geological) features. The Hard Interchange is an entirely hard standing area devoid of any vegetation or biodiversity value. The proposals would have no affect on biodiversity and the impact is defined as neutral.

Water The water environment aspect considers the effects of the proposed scheme on surface and ground water quality, and flood risk. Despite the close proximity to the water environment there is unlikely to be any adverse or beneficial change to water quality as a result of the proposals. There will be no new sources of pollution during the operation of the proposals. The Hard Interchange is located in an area designated by the Environment Agency as very low risk from flooding. This is the lowest possible flood risk and means that each year, this area has a chance of flooding of less than 1 in 1000 (0.1%). The water environment aspect was therefore scoped out of further assessment and an impact defined as neutral.

Accessibility The Hard Interchange scheme will provide the potential for future bus network expansion through increasing the number of bays in comparison to the existing. However, the operators are not in a position at present to


Atkins The Hard Interchange Business Case – Value for Money Statement – 19 May 2014 iv

assess what additional services or routes may use the increased capacity and therefore an assessment cannot be carried out. Therefore, in terms of impact to the accessibility the overall appraisal is considered neutral to slight beneficial.

Security By placing the proposed bus station concourse and retail facilities on the ground floor, rather than over two floors as they are currently, there will be additional staff surveillance in one large, main location thus increasing the ease of formal surveillance. This is expected to counter the issues of street begging and anti-social behaviour in the location and the increased sense of security is expected to benefit vulnerable users such as women, children, and older people. The proposals feature good designs that avoid the use of recesses, which would facilitate easier formal surveillance to take place. The proposals would provide a CCTV system across the site. In terms of impact to the security the overall appraisal is considered large beneficial.

Severance Overall the proposals will improve severance levels over the current provision by increasing pedestrian permeability through the site. The proposals are considered to have a ‘slight’ level of severance because whilst people wanting to make pedestrian movements will be generally able to do so, it is recognised that there will be some hindrance to pedestrian movement by the glass screen at the taxi rank. This screen will be installed for safety reasons to prevent pedestrians from walking through the busy bus parking area, where buses will be constantly parking and reversing throughout the day. Removing the need to use the multiple internal pedestrian crossings will be of benefit to vulnerable users such as disabled and older people.

Value for money assessment

Benefit cost ratio The analysis outlined above suggests that the Hard Interchange scheme will generate a PVB of £12,922,012 made up of:

• £1,213,606 PV resulting from a reduction in cost associated with journey time for business users;

• £1,724,192 PV resulting from a reduction in pedestrian and cyclist journey time for non-business users;

• £2,312,559 PV resulting from a reduction in pedestrian and cyclist journey time for non-other users;

• -£14,305 as a result of the increased greenhouse gasses emissions; and

• £7,352,049 of journey quality benefits resulting from improved public realm Further analysis was conducted on noise and air quality however the impact was deemed to be neutral in each case and no monetised benefit was produced. This NPB compared against the PVC of £8,524,070 and will generate a BCR of 1.5:1.

Qualitative assessment Further social and environmental benefits have been derived from qualitative assessment, and whilst these will not provide a monetised benefit for use in this appraisal, the impacts are taking considered when deriving the Value for Money presented by the scheme

• The impact to Townscape is considered to be slight beneficial to moderate beneficial;

• The impact to the Historic Environment is considered to be slight beneficial; • The impact on Biodiversity is considered to be neutral;

• The impact on the Water Environment is considered to be neutral;

• The impact on Accidents is considered to be moderate beneficial;

• The impact on Accessibility is considered neutral to slight beneficial; • The impact on Security is considered large beneficial; and

• The impact to Severance is considered slight beneficial.

Strategic Impact Assessment Whilst not being appraised benefits as defined by WebTAG, as they are not direct impacts on public accounts, the impact of the scheme on the local economy will be substantial:


Atkins The Hard Interchange Business Case – Value for Money Statement – 19 May 2014 v

• Construction of the interchange will deliver 81 direct and 37 indirect supply linkage FTE jobs creating a GVA of £2.58 million;

• The redeveloped and expanded services of the public transport operators will deliver at least 5 direct and 2 supply linkage FTE jobs creating a GVA of £0.2 million;

• The interchange is anticipated to kick start regeneration of the Hard Masterplan area creating 862 operational and 379 supply linkage FTE jobs generating a GVA of £51 million; of which £32 million can be associated two Masterplan sites which have been linked by the landowners to the public sector investment in the Hard Interchange;

• The Masterplan area will also include 350 new residential units;

• Network Rail have committed to investing in the upgrade of facilities at Portsmouth Harbour Station which will complement the work undertaken at the Interchange. This will further improve journey quality. However, Network Rail states that these works are unlikely to be progressed unless the investment in the interchange is assured.

Key risk and sensitivities Since the final submission of the LTB application PCC have progressed with the planning and management required for being in a position to complete the scheme (when funding is received) by March 2015. A programme detailing the process to completion has been adopted and maintained.

All key risks to the scheme have been dealt with in the formulation of a risk assessment which has been subjected to a Quantified Risk Analysis. The adopted QRA suggests a mean value of £1.3 million should be applied in considering the financial risk at this stage of scheme development. This value represents 21.7% of the total scheme costs (excluding optimism bias). The QRA included the analysis of several risks which could have the potential to increase scheme construction costs.

Furthermore, in line with the guidance in WebTAG and the Treasury Green Book a mitigated optimism bias of 17% has been applied to the estimated scheme costs.

Summary The evidence provided within this report suggests that whilst the monetised benefits which can be deemed to be having an effect on the public accounts can only provide a Medium VfM category based on BCR, when the significant local economic, environmental and social benefits are added the scheme should be considered to be representing a High Value for Money.


1. Introduction

The Hard Interchange 1.1. The Hard Interchange scheme is based on proposals set out in The Hard Supplementary

Planning Document (SPD) (Adopted 2010, Updated 2012), which involves replacing the existing bus interchange at The Hard, and improving the public realm, wayfinding and cycle parking facilities (Appendix A).

1.2. The scheme will provide a safe and efficient method of passenger interchange between several modes of transport, allowing for improved connectivity to key destinations such as Gunwharf Quays and the Historic Dockyard as well as enhance and complement the Park and Ride user experience. It will also add to the potential mixed use regeneration areas in the vicinity.

1.3. A high quality environment would provide many benefits to the city centre and, in particular, unlock a number of nearby development opportunity sites identified as the Hard Masterplan Area. The developments present an opportunity to strengthen the visitor economy within Portsmouth. Furthermore, they provide opportunities to stimulate the local supply chain.

1.4. Portsmouth City Council (PCC), as landowner, have recognised that in order to kick-start the development of the Hard Masterplan Area and ensure its contribution to delivering the Solent Strategic Economic Plan, public sector investment is required to plan, design and construct a new public transport interchange.

1.5. The Hard Interchange scheme should not therefore be considered solely as a transport scheme, expected to provide transport-user benefits. Instead, the building of the new interchange will act as the catalyst for the delivery of a range of mixed use developments including approximately:

• 15,000m2 of office space;

• 3000m2 of retails space;

• 350 residential dwellings; and

• 600 hotel and student accommodation rooms.

1.6. This scale of development has the potential to deliver £51 million of GVA associated with the occupation and operation of the various sites. A large proportion of this (£32 million) is from the sites at Brunel House and the Former Pall Europe building, whose owners have indicated that their significant private investment would only occur if they have confidence in the regeneration of the area as a whole.

1.7. The Hard Interchange itself is predicted to generate £2.69 million of GVA through the construction and extended operator facilities on the site.

1.8. Without a funding stream, this scheme will not go ahead, jeopardising the wider benefits associated with development in the Masterplan Area.

1.9. Furthermore, the proposed interchange will generate significant journey time savings for transport users who will be able to take advantage of the consolidated bus waiting area, direct walking and cycle access, improved train station entrance and ferry access as well as modern information and ticketing facilities.

1.10. The appraisal of the Hard Interchange scheme’s Value for Money should therefore focus on the following objectives:


Atkins The Hard Interchange Business Case – Value for Money Statement – 19 May 2014 2

Table 1.1 – Key objectives of the Hard Interchange scheme

Background to the Value for Money Statement 1.11. Following the devolution of major transport scheme funding from the DfT, Portsmouth City

Council (PCC), as part of the Solent Local Transport Body (LTB) along with Hampshire County Council, Isle of Wight Council, Southampton City Council and the Solent Local Economic Partnership (LEP), were asked to prepare business cases for proposed schemes which would deliver the transport infrastructure critical for realising growth and developments identified in the Core Strategy.

1.12. The Solent LTB statement of principle is:

“The Solent Local Transport Body will prioritise its allocation from the devolved major transport scheme funding stream on transport investments that have no identified funding source and that deliver measurable and significant economic benefits to the Solent economy in terms of growth in employment or that safeguard employment, drive new residential and employment development, or an increase in GVA. Transformational opportunities will take priority. Transport schemes will provide clear evidence of value for money, be deliverable within the 2015-19 period and be identified and developed proportionately in accordance with DfT WebTAG guidance.”

1.13. In March 2013, the LTB issued an Assurance Framework which set out the principles and arrangements for the LTB to follow when allocating funding amongst the applicants. The first 6 steps (see Table 1.2 below) outlined the process for prioritising the schemes submitted by the LTB members.

Table 1.2 – Solent LTB Assurance Framework steps 1 -6 Assurance framework process

1 Using the TDP as a base, promoters select those schemes that they wish to propose for devolved local major transport scheme funding. This will ensure commitment from the delivery body

2 Each scheme promoter completes a proposal (including an EAST form) that provides an opportunity to ‘sell’ the case for a transport scheme or package of schemes

3 LTB Member workshop to review the applications, agree on a prioritised list of schemes and award programme entry (subject to the later submission of a Transport Business Case and WebTAG assessment). This step will invite promoters to present their proposals and answer questions, provide supplementary information and a final chance to ‘sell’ their scheme. Proposals will be published on the LTB website

4 Report presented to a meeting of the LTB providing details of all proposals and recommendations for prioritisation, programme entry, and phasing. At this step there will be an opportunity for non-LTB members to challenge/ support proposed decisions

Key objectives of the Hard Interchange scheme

1 Kick-starting the regeneration of the Hard Masterplan Area and contribute to economic growth of the Solent region;

2 Provide sufficient public transport capacity to meet any future demand;

3 Deliver a safe and attractive point of entry to the City’s key tourist area; and

4 To provide benefits to transport users, easing their journeys through reducing travel time and improving their experience.



5 Prioritised list ratified at a meeting of the LTB

6 Results of prioritisation published on the Solent LTB website and notified to DfT

1.14. Using this framework, PCC submitted a Local Major Transport Scheme Fund – Project Application Form for the Hard Interchange scheme in June 2013. The application included a Strategic Outline Business Case for the scheme including details of the Strategic, Economic, Financial, Commercial and Management cases. The Hard Interchange scheme was selected as one of four priority schemes for funding by the LTB.

1.15. Once schemes were prioritised, the Assurance Framework outlines the steps (see Table 1.3) required for justifying the award of funding by the LTB.

1.16. In February 2014, the LTB prepared a report which considered recent advice from the Department for Transport (DfT) on the status of the Solent LTB Assurance Framework and commitment of funding for prioritised schemes. This included consideration of the level of detail to be included within the scheme Business Cases as required by steps 7-10 of the Assurance Framework.

Table 1.3 – Solent LTB Assurance Framework steps 7 - 14 Assurance framework process

7 Promoters of schemes prioritised for funding develop an Outline Transport Business Case and WebTAG assessment

8 Study approach agreed and invitation to develop a Full Business Case formalised

9 Full Transport Business Case developed with WebTAG assessment undertaken by scheme promoter

10 Independent scrutiny of the Business Case for each scheme, with a Value for Money Statement provided on each scheme

11 Publication of Business cases on the Solent LTB website

12 Three month consultation period

13 LTB make a final decision on funding based on a review of the Business Case, the independent scrutiny, and consultation responses

14 Confirmation of funding award

1.17. The LTB report stated that in developing Business Cases, it must be remembered that scheme

promoters have already submitted detailed applications that were based on the DfT five business case model (Strategic, Economic, Commercial, Financial and Management) and given that all schemes are requesting public funding of less than £5million, which was previously the threshold above which major scheme business cases needed to be prepared, then it is recommended that a proportionate approach to the business case is adopted.

1.18. A proportionate approach to providing a business case has been considered appropriate by the LTB and LEP. This approach requires the production of a Value for Money (VfM) statement, as defined in the Department for Transport (DfT) guidance Value for Money Assessment: Advice Note for Local Transport Decision Makers published in December 2013.

1.19. In keeping with the proportionate approach, in several areas of assessment (primarily the environmental and socio-distributional impacts of the scheme) previous work has been reviewed and updated where relevant.



Purpose of this report 1.20. In light of the advice provided by the DfT, LTB and LEP, this report provides the VfM statement in

support of the Hard Interchange scheme application for funding on behalf of PCC.

1.21. In order to derive the Value for Money provided by a transport intervention, multi-criteria analysis is undertaken which considers a wide range of expected impacts and benefits, which can be expressed qualitatively or as a quantified monetary value.

1.22. The initial step is to derive the benefit-cost ratio (BCR) which allows for a comparison between the investment being made on an intervention and the return on that investment through monetised economic benefits seen within the operation of the transport system.

1.23. However, for many schemes the BCR considers only one element in establishing whether the intervention will provide Value for Money. It is also, therefore, essential to assess an intervention in relation to non-monetised impacts on the environment and society, as well as considering how the investment will help to deliver other strategic goals and aspirations; notably in delivering the planned developments within the Hard SPD Area.

1.24. This report therefore presents how the Hard Interchange scheme will have a significant positive benefit in both a local and regional context and is intended for use in justifying the allocation of funds from the LTB for the design and construction of the Hard Interchange.

1.25. This report should be read in conjunction with the Local Major Transport Scheme Fund – Project Application Form (Appendix B).

Supporting documentation and evidence 1.26. The evidence supplied within this VfM statement (and the accompanying Appraisal Summary

Table) has been compiled from technical analysis and appraisal of each element.

Movement analysis

1.27. A Movement Analysis study (Appendix C) at the Hard Interchange was undertaken in November and December 2013. This study aimed to establish the level and types of user movements taking place at the Hard Interchange during a weekday and weekend day. This study therefore aims to provide evidence of existing site conditions and patterns of use to designers with the intention of enhancing its efficiency, usability, legibility and place making quality.

1.28. The following passenger, pedestrian and vehicle surveys were undertaken:

• Passenger interchange surveys to ascertain which modes users board and alight from at the interchange;

• Passenger route choice surveys to establish the use of key paths and routes through the interchange from specified origins to specific destinations;

• Pedestrian flow surveys designed to establish the levels of pedestrian flows on key footpaths throughout the interchange zone;

• Formal crossing surveys designed to establish the numbers of pedestrians crossing at formal crossing locations;

• Informal crossing surveys to ascertain the number of pedestrians crossing informally at key locations in the interchange zone;

• A crossing compliance survey to establish the patterns of use at the controlled pedestrian crossing within the interchange zone;

• Vehicle flow surveys to count the number and type of vehicles using the roads in and surrounding the interchange;

• Classified turning counts recording the number, type and turning directions of vehicles at the two junctions adjacent to the interchange; and



• Parking surveys to measure the current usage of the on-site parking facilities.

1.29. Alongside these surveys Atkins carried out an on-site observation study to highlight qualitative movement issues in the interchange zone.

User questionnaire survey

1.30. The findings of the Movement Analysis study are also supported with data from a user questionnaire survey (Appendix D) undertaken during the same period. The purpose of the questionnaire is to gain users and non-users views on the interchange such that their responses and comments are able to help shape the future design and operations of the interchange. Of particular importance was to understand the value users place on improved services/facilities at the interchange.

1.31. Questions were developed in four key areas related to:

• Interchange facilities – how often users come to the interchange, the facilities they use and the value placed on improved services & facilities;

• Public transport information provision – information sources users use and their preferred methods of improving information provision;

• Journey information – Users’ origin, destination, frequency of journey and mode; and

• Demographic data – Basic demographic data to assess the representation of the sample.

Pedestrian and cycle environment and journey time review

1.32. In order to derive the economic benefits afforded by a reduction in journey times through the redesign of the Interchange, two technical notes (contained within Appendix E) have been produced detailing the anticipated change in the pedestrian and cycle environments.

1.33. The pedestrian analysis also includes an assessment of the proposed design within the Pedestrian Environment Review System (PERS). This has been used to calibrate an assessment of journey benefits and produce a monetised value using the Transport for London Valuing Urban Realm (VUR) Toolkit.

Environmental Impact Assessment

1.34. In line with WebTAG requirements, an Environmental Impact Appraisal (Appendix F) of the Hard Interchange scheme has been conducted. Using scheme designs and traffic information as a base for a scoping assessment, each of the TAG environmental aspects relevant to the Environment Objective were examined:

• Noise;

• Air quality;

• Greenhouse gases;

• Landscape;

• Townscape;

• Historic environment;

• Biodiversity; and

• Water environment.

Structure of this report 1.35. This report is structured in accordance with the Department for Transport’s guidance on Value for

Money statements, which was updated in 2013. Following this Introduction, the remainder of the document is structured as follows:



• Chapter 2 provides a description of the scheme and its strategic importance in transforming this key public transport gateway to the Solent and the regeneration and redevelopment of the Hard Masterplan Area;

• Chapter 3 provides the background analysis in deriving the Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) of the scheme;

• Chapter 4 presents the non-monetised Qualitative Impacts which may alter the VfM category for the scheme

• Chapter 5 investigates the wider strategic monetised impacts of the scheme which should be considered in the appraisal of the scheme; and

• Chapter 6 summarises the Value for Money Assessment utilising the assessment and analysis in the preceding chapters.



2. The Hard Interchange scheme

2.1. “The redevelopment of The Hard Interchange into a modern, accessible and high quality facility is essential to act as a catalyst for wider regeneration in the area. By preparing a masterplan for The Hard, the city council provided a framework of planning guidance for developers and landowners wishing to redevelop their sites. Since adopting the masterplan, a number of landowners have entered into discussions with the local planning authority over potential schemes, however a common theme raised by them is the necessity for their high quality aspirations to be matched with a new interchange to serve both existing and future residents & visitors.

Regeneration is not just about buildings and redevelopment but place-making and quality public spaces. The city council has a key role to play within The Hard and by providing a high quality interchange and space can help to drive private investment to create homes, jobs and opportunity.

Claire Upton-Brown, City Development Manager”

Scheme design overview 2.2. The Hard Interchange scheme is based on proposals set out in The Hard Supplementary

Planning Document (SPD) (Adopted 2010, Updated 2012), which involves replacing the existing bus interchange at The Hard, and improving the public realm, wayfinding and cycle parking facilities. The preferred scheme option was reached through significant stakeholder consultation with transport operators (First, Stagecoach, Network Rail, Gosport Ferries, Wightlink, Taxis, National Express, Park and Ride) local businesses and transport user interest groups. Three rounds of public consultation were undertaken during the evolution of the Masterplan, whilst additional public events concentrating on the new interchange proposals have been carried out in early 2014. A planning application for the scheme was submitted in April 2014 with Figure 2.1 outlining the planning application boundary.

2.3. The scheme involves:

• Bus interchange layout – a revised layout is required to provide sufficient bus stops and stands in order to meet existing and future demands at the interchange which works well for both bus and vehicle manoeuvring, and for pedestrian and cycle accessibility;

• Pedestrian realm and public space – improving the experience for pedestrians in and around the interchange through improved connectivity between Portsmouth Harbour rail station, the Gosport ferry terminal, the Hard and Gunwharf Quays, including wider footways to reduce conflict with those users waiting for taxis, coaches and preventing pedestrians easily accessing the bus apron;

• Cycling facilities and movement – improving the experience for cyclists, including the provision of secure, safe and weatherproof cycle parking and storage facilities, and the continuation of existing cycle paths around the area;

• Wayfinding - Introducing an enhanced lighting scheme and replacing signage with a coordinated scheme, which complements the PCC wayfinding strategy that provides clear directions for pedestrians moving from the interchange to other parts of the area and city; and

• Vehicle access - clear access into the bus interchange for taxis and delivery vehicles (accessing the railway station), a taxi waiting area that is safe for pedestrians to use and dedicated public pick up/drop off spaces.



Figure 2.1 – Planning application boundary

2.4. The scheme will provide a safe and efficient method of passenger interchange between several modes of transport, allowing for improved connectivity to key destinations such as Gunwharf Quays and the Historic Dockyard, but also to the potential mixed use regeneration areas in the vicinity.

2.5. The proposals involve modifying the existing road network with only limited new construction required. Some elements of the scheme are already being delivered as part of the Portsmouth City Council Local Sustainable Transport Fund (LSTF) project, e.g. the provision of secure, safe Brompton Dock cycle parking and storage facilities which are linked to a further dock at the Park and Ride site; and improvements to the Millennium Walkway that links Gunwharf Quays to the Historic Dockyard via a waterfront route. Network Rail will be supporting the scheme by relocating and improving their entrance to the Portsmouth Harbour Railway Station, complementing the scheme design proposals.

2.6. The project will deliver the following outcomes:

• A new interchange which provides a safe, attractive and efficient environment for public transport users, pedestrians, and cyclists;

• An improved experience for pedestrians and cyclists moving between the railway station, Gosport ferry, The Hard and Gunwharf Quays;

• Improved travel information for all modes;

• Greater use of public transport as a means of accessing this area of Portsmouth; and

• Contribute to the creation of an attractive gateway to the city which will help shape The Hard into a vibrant waterfront destination, building on its function as a key city gateway and its reputation as an area of historic character and charm (based on the vision set out in The Hard, SPD).

2.7. PCC intend to trigger the break clause in the contracts of existing tenants in July 2014 which would enable construction to commence in early 2015 with a proposed completion date of April 2016.



Figure 2.2 – Scheme design for the Hard Interchange

Schedule of facilities

2.8. Table 2.1 provides a schedule of the design elements, aimed at easing user’s journeys through the interchange and details the improvements to access, facilities and the provision of information.

Table 2.1 – Proposed schedule of facilities

ACCESS

Cycle Storage

There will be cycle racks located outside the station entrance to the west of the main concourse building. These will be located for ease of access for users coming from Gosport Ferries and the station.

There will be further racks located at the east of the site, to enable storage of cycles for those accessing other transport modes from the highway.

Improved cycle access Specifically designed cycle access along the northern edge of the interchange.

Wider pedestrian access

Easier movement throughout the site by increased pedestrian walkways to both north and south routes.

Level access concourse

Level access from the front of the Hard into the train station. Fully DDA compliant ramp for access from Gosport Ferries into the station and concourse.

1:40 incline across the whole site, meaning the facilities within the concourse and station can be accessed without the use of the steps and ramps.

Hard and soft landscaping

Level change will be delivered through hard landscape. Specific materials will be used to define cycle lanes, pedestrian and vehicular routes.

The area will benefit from soft landscaping

Improved access between modes

Level access provides clearer routes between transport modes.



Accessible taxi rank The licensed taxi rank is located less that 50m from the concourse entrance. It is two car widths, so that taxis can move to the front of the queue if there is a specific need, e.g. disabled access taxi or a large vehicle.

Level access onto buses

Level access onto the buses for people with disabilities and buggy users.

DDA compliant All facilities, access e.g. ramps will be fully compliant with DDA.

USER FACILITIES

Protection from weather The concourse building will provide cover from weather for users. A choice will remain, as there will be an external area which will be used for waiting.

Safety/desire lines at night

These will be improved through well considered, architectural lighting which will increase the feeling of safety in the area.

Safe comfortable waiting areas.

Seating will be provided directly outside each bus stand door. Other seating will be located around the concourse and externally.

Shelter at the taxi rank A shelter will be provided at the head of the taxi rank to provide coverage for customers as they wait. This will also be used for the provision of taxi information.

Visibility and signage Good visibility throughout the site as a result of decluttering and improved lines of sight.

INFORMATION

Joint Ticketing Facilities

Central Location for ticket machines - to include Gosport Ferries, Network Rail, First Buses, Stagecoach, Isle of Wight ferries, National Express

Face to face ticket sales in same location - 'Travel Shop'

Real Time Information 10 small screens located at each bus stand door

One large screen showing information for all transport modes

Transport Information Centrally located stands to provide information for all transport modes - to include timetables and maps.

Tourist/Commuter information

There will be provision of information about Portsmouth, Gosport and the Isle of Wight, plus other areas.

My Journey Planning To be integrated into the new interchange as per PCC strategy

WAYFINDING AND SIGNAGE

Branding Following the recent launch of the park and ride, it is proposed that the branding will continue to the Hard. This will complete the user experience

Wayfinding Various wayfinding totems and signs will be installed to ensure clarity. This will follow the recently adopted corporate strategy. These will highlight access to city centre attractions/shops, local attractions, walking and cycling routes.

OPERATORS FACILITIES

Increased number of stands

10 stands, plus layover and on street drop off

Enhanced mess facilities

For increased number of services into the Hard

Enhanced controller facilities

Specifically designed to be fit for purpose, this will have space for all equipment and will view the bus apron.

Travel shop With suitable staff facilities.

Information points For all travel information. Much improved in number and location.

Real time information at bus stand entrances

To provide accurate information to customers



Strategic importance of the scheme 2.9. The area currently functions as a key city and Solent gateway and public transport interchange

but is also an area of historic and visual interest enjoyed by residents and visitors every year. Many visitors to Portsmouth, arriving by rail, coach, bus and ferry, form their first impressions of the city based on their experience of The Hard.

2.10. The Hard site lies between the popular attractions of the Portsmouth Historic Dockyard and Gunwharf Quays, and is located about a mile south-west from the city centre. These two visitor attractions respectively attract over 750,000 and 8 million visitors each year. 40% of visitors to Gunwharf and 15% of visitors to the Historic Dockyard arrive by public transport.

2.11. All of these factors combine to create an extremely busy pedestrian environment. There is considerable rail-bus-ferry interchange, however very little information is available to passengers arriving by rail about the location and frequency of bus services. A large number of commuters, particularly those arriving by ferry, use cycles to continue their journey.

2.12. The site, owned by Portsmouth City Council, offers bus and coach transport. The neighbouring Portsmouth Harbour Station provides trains to London, Cardiff and Brighton. There are also two passenger ferry services running from The Hard Interchange - a fast catamaran service operated by Wightlink travels to Ryde on the Isle of Wight every 30 minutes, and the Gosport Ferry runs at least every 15 minutes to Gosport.

2.13. In recent years, however, the area has suffered considerable decline as it struggles to establish a contemporary role within the context of wider city development. The existing bus interchange is considerably dated. It covers a large decked area in front of the railway station and is extremely inefficient in terms of its layout and use of space. It is poorly designed in terms of passenger accessibility and acts as a barrier to pedestrians and cyclists exiting the railway station and ferry terminals, ‘funnelling’ them onto two narrow pathways that lead towards the northern and southern ends of the Hard. There is also a lack of clear signage, wayfinding meaning unclear/uncertain routes around the site and to Gunwharf Quays and the historic dockyard.

2.14. It is critical that this important gateway conveys a strong, positive message to visitors, namely that they have arrived in a welcoming, vibrant and attractive city and gateway to the wider Solent. At present the area does little to create this impression.

2.15. A high quality environment would provide many benefits to the city centre and, in particular, unlock a number of nearby development opportunity sites and help to promote jobs. The developments present an opportunity to strengthen the visitor economy within Portsmouth. Furthermore, they provide opportunities to stimulate the local supply chain and support the provision for Higher Education students within Portsmouth.

Portsmouth Planning Policy

2.16. The potential for The Hard improvements to contribute to the economic growth in the sub-region is significant and the site is included in the Portsmouth Plan (Policy PCS4 Portsmouth City Centre), which states:

The Hard will be shaped into a vibrant waterfront destination, building on its function as a key city gateway and its reputation as a unique area of historic character and charm. A new passenger interchange facility together with places to live, to work, to stay, to eat and to relax will enhance the experience of visitors and residents alike. The creation of a distinctive public realm will help to revitalise and transform the area.

2.17. It is also included in Policy PCS17 Transport, where the land at The Hard is safeguarded for improved interchange facilities. Additionally, The Hard area is referenced in Policy PCS24 Tall Buildings as a preferred location for tall buildings.



Developments within the Hard Masterplan Area

2.18. The development represents a deliverable and transformational opportunity for the Solent area with significant GVA, employment growth, and social benefits.

2.19. Evidence from developers and the business community indicate that a high quality environment is needed to unlock nearby development at identified opportunity sites and letters of support are contained in Appendix G. Since the original submission, there have been a number of progress updates and supporting statements, provided by local developers, which demonstrates the strategic importance of The Hard:

• Brunel House and Havant Street Car Park – Bouygues submitted a planning application across both of these sites in April 2014. The scheme proposes a 40 storey tower comprising:

o 329 residential apartments;

o 512 student study bedrooms in managed halls of residence;

o commercial floorspace;

o Taxi office; and

o A multi storey car park serving the development.

The developer believes it is important the new interchange is provided:

“Bouygues Development, the UK property development arm of Bouygues Construction is currently working with Portsmouth City Council to bring forward a number of schemes in the city. The most prominent of these is Brunel House, a large mixed-use regeneration project of the Hard with a Gross Development Value in the region of £100m. The viability and success of such a project is intrinsically linked to the wider gentrification of this area. In the current climate attracting investment for schemes like Brunel House is challenging; the investment market will see the creation of a modern interchange as a very powerful and positive signal for the Council’s long term investment and support in the area and thus more willing to help support and unlock the scheme.

Bouyges Development fully support Portsmouth City Council’s bid to obtain funding for the Hard Interchange and believes that no developments can be successful without the council’s wider investment.”

• Former PALL Europe Building – Following its purchase by Land Securities, the car park is now open for public use as parking for Gunwharf Quays staff and customers. The site has planning permission for the conversion of the former PALL building to a hotel. The site owner sees the new interchange as vital to underpinning their private investment in the area:

“Land Securities is a key stakeholder in the Portsmouth Harbour area with its ownership of both Gunwharf Quays and the former PALL office building. We have aspirations to enhance both these important assets to us, particularly the PALL Europe Building, and regard the redevelopment of The Hard as a crucial part in helping us to deliver greater investment, growths and jobs to the Harbour Area.

The Hard is a vital cog in the Portsmouth machine and yet it fails to present Portsmouth in its best light for both local residents and potential investors such as Land Securities. Bringing forward this development is strongly welcomed and will create a transport hub that the city will be proud of.

We warmly welcome the proposals to the redevelopment of The Hard”.

• The Railway Arches – There have been a number of enquiries over the past year that have been passed onto Gunwharf Quays (the landowner), however, it is likely that the new



interchange and Brunel House developments will see these spaces become attractive to smaller businesses.

• Rosemary Lane Garages – This site is owned by PCC Housing Service, and the garages are on short term leases. A residential scheme of up to 15-20 units has been designed and costed. However, the Leasehold and Commercial Services Manager has indicated that they are awaiting the improvements at the interchange before submitting a planning application:

“The Housing Service at Portsmouth City Council own one of the opportunity sites within The Hard masterplan area as well as a significant proportion of existing properties within the neighbouring Portsea area. The redevelopment of a new interchange at The Hard is a fundamental project to support the immediate area and beyond. The Rosemary Lane site is within our future Development Programme for a new housing scheme, however we see a new interchange as essential before investment is made in the site. A new facility for residents and visitors alike will also give us confidence when programming long term improvements and maintenance to our existing stock in the area, whilst also allowing us to take an active role in supporting affordable housing in other major redevelopments in the area”.

• Boathouse 4 – This site will be restored and opened to the public as the Boatbuilding & Heritage Skills Training Centre. The Boathouse will become a Centre of Excellence for boatbuilding training, with IBTC Portsmouth and Highbury College delivering practical, intensive courses in traditional boatbuilding and related skills. The Centre, which will open in April 2015, will also house an exciting hands-on exhibition on small naval craft and a mezzanine level brasserie with stunning views across Portsmouth Harbour. The project, which will cost £5.5m in total, has received funding from the Heritage Lottery Fund and Regional Growth Fund.

• Former Ship Leopard public house - One redevelopment within The Hard masterplan area is already nearing completion with the former Ship Leopard pub being transformed into a luxurious boutique hotel. Over the past 18 months the grade two listed building has undergone a £1.6m transformation and now has 13 bedrooms, including three suites. It is expected to open in late May and will also feature a boutique cafe which will be open to the public throughout the day.

• Portsmouth Harbour Rail station – In light of the proposed replacement of the Hard Interchange, Network Rail have committed to improving the station entrance and ancillary accommodation within Portsmouth Harbour Station. These improvements will be funded separately from the Interchange but are expected to be delivered within similar timescales. The Route Enhancement Manager for the Wessex Alliance has stated:

'Network Rail has been working closely with Portsmouth City Council to develop a joint scheme to enhance the facilities and customer experience at the Hard Interchange and Portsmouth Harbour station.

Network Rail have submitted a bid for funding to undertake works to internal accommodation at the Harbour Station, these are complementary to the newly designed interchange concourse building. This also includes a level access main entrance into the station.

The proposed development of the Interchange is highly significant to the Station development and newly designed Interchange is providing the catalyst for Network Rail's scheme. It is unlikely that the station improvements would go ahead without the Interchange project.'

Strategic Economic Plan

2.20. The Solent Local Enterprise Partnership has published its Strategic Economic Plan for the sub-region, Transforming Solent – Solent Strategic Economic Plan (2014-20). The development of The Hard will play a central role in delivering the vision set out in the Plan, to “create an environment that will bring about sustainable economic growth and private sector investment in the Solent” by contributing to the strategic priorities and key levers which will create a platform for growth (Table 2.2).



Table 2.2 – The role of The Hard in delivering the Solent Strategic Economic Plan

Strategic Priority How will The Hard contribute?

Supporting new businesses, enterprise and ensuring SME survival and growth.

Evidence from developers and the business community indicate that a high quality interchange environment is needed to unlock development at eight opportunity sites identified nearby (delivering residential units, hotel space, and office floorspace, together with lower levels of retail floorspace and SMEs). In the short-term it will help unlock development at the Brunel House site, generating direct and indirect net jobs within the region.

Enabling infrastructure priorities

The Hard is one of four priority transport schemes that have been identified by the Local Transport Body, which is referenced in the Strategic Economic Plan. The Hard will support a wider programme of investment to:

• Improve access to Central Portsmouth by public transport and cycle: including the Tipner P&R Service; TfSH LSTF programme of corridor improvements, smartcard ticketing and behaviour change; SE Hants BRT Future Phases Study and Design Feasibility and Business Case Study (Sep 2013); Western Corridor Cycle and pedestrian improvements etc

• Improve connectivity within Central Portsmouth (City Centre, Harbour Area, Southsea):

o A Connected and Sustainable Centre (PCC) includes the following relevant measures: wayfinding to / from The Hard, The Hard cycle route, Brompton bike hire and secure cycle parking at Portsmouth Harbour Station, low cost public realm improvements on the two approaches to The Hard (Queen St and Park St), small scale public realm improvements at Portsmouth Harbour Station including a canopy between the train station and the Gosport Ferry terminal, improvements to the existing Millennium Walk along the seafront, and a Park and Sail service from the International Port to Gunwharf Quays.

o A Better Connected South Hampshire (TfSH) includes funding for the following schemes in The Hard area of relevance to the SPD vision: real time information along key bus corridors and at interchange (planned implementation 2014/15); smart-ticketing (planned implementation 2014/15).

These improvements, along with The Hard Interchange scheme will help reduce the reliance on the car for short trips within Portsmouth, and encourage visitors and shoppers to make the most of Portsmouth’s retail and tourism offering across the three centres (by encouraging them to walk or cycle between the three locations, and increasing levels of physical activity).

Investing in skills to establish a sustainable pattern of growth, ensuring local residents are equipped to take up the jobs that are created, and that businesses can source local skills and labour to underpin growth.

The type of development permitted will create a range of medium and lower skilled jobs within the Charles Dickens ward, which is one of the most deprived wards in the South East, outside London.

An Employment & Skills Plan will ensure that a proportion of the local population are employed during construction. Employers will be advised to advertise all jobs through JobCentre Plus to enable workless applicants to access pre-employment training.



The development will help address an over dependence within the local area on traditional manufacturing and public sector jobs.

Developing strategic sectors and clusters of marine, aerospace and defence, advanced manufacturing, engineering, transport and logistics businesses, low carbon and the visitor economy – establishing the area as a business gateway, at both local and international levels and developing local supply chains.

Reflecting Portsmouth’s Regeneration Strategy, the site will be developed as a high quality transport gateway, aimed at attracting and supporting the visitor economy and local population.

The scheme would improve access to Central Portsmouth by sustainable modes and create a transport network which will support development within Portsmouth’s Western Corridor.

Building on our substantial knowledge assets to support innovation and build innovative capacity

The occupiers expressing an interest in nearby developments to date provide an opportunity to catalyse a centre of visitor excellence and support the provision for Higher Education students.

2.21. The vision is to shape The Hard into a vibrant waterfront destination, building on its function as a key city gateway and its reputation as an area of historic character and charm. New passenger facilities, cultural opportunities and places to live, to work, to stay, to eat and to relax will enhance the experience of visitors and residents alike. More than just a gateway, The Hard will function as a key link to other parts of the city and as a destination in its own right.

Deliverability

Scheme outturn cost

2.22. In contrast to the appraisal scheme costs presented in the economic case, which are used to generate the BCR, outturn scheme costs are those calculated as being the value required to complete build of a project. Compiling the outturn costs requires:

• the full level of forecast growth in construction costs up to the time of expenditure, rather than only the level of growth above background inflation;

• the addition of risk cost based on the P(80) value (there is an 80% chance the extra cost identified in the QRA will not exceed this value) while there is no adjustment for optimism bias;

• the cost to be presented at cash value, rather than being converted into market prices; and

• being based on current value of money (2014 prices).

2.23. The outturn cost is therefore representative of the payments which will occur as they become due to inform financial requirements. For The Hard Interchange Scheme, the outturn scheme cost is calculated at being £7.92 million. The step by step approach for identifying how this cost is built up is shown in Appendix H.

Funding

2.24. In June 2013, Portsmouth City Council submitted a bid for £4.832 million of devolved major scheme funding from the Solent Local Transport Body (LTB) towards the cost of the interchange scheme. This was supported by £2 million local contribution from PCC’s capital reserves, and other local authority contributions.



2.25. The outturn scheme cost (updated as mentioned above) has been reforecast to £7.92 million as a result of a more comprehensive quantification of risk. Whilst the required funding from the LTB

2.26. Appendix I contains a letter of commitment to funding from PCCs Head of Finance/ Section 151 Officer, explicitly stating PCC will fund the scheme from £2 million of Capital Scheme programme and prioritise the allocation of reserve funds due to risks materialising.

Programme

2.27. Since the final submission of the LTB application PCC have progressed with the planning and management required for being in a position to complete the scheme (when funding is received) by March 2016. A programme detailing the process to completion has been adopted and maintained.

2.28. The programme for completion of the design, tender and construction of the Hard Interchange scheme is contained in Appendix J.

2.29. The work undertaken to date has been undertaken at PCC’s own risk. Without funding from the LTB, the interchange cannot be completed and the prospects of delivering jobs from this key site in the Solent region will not be realised.



3. Benefit-cost ratio

Introduction 3.1. The Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) provides an estimate of how the costs of a scheme relate to the

value of monetised benefits that the scheme creates.

3.2. The BCR has been assessed within a WebTAG compliant framework comprising the following:

• Derivation of scheme costs and adjustment to conform to standard presentation of values;

• Economic appraisal - a detailed assessment of monetised economic, environmental and social benefits; and

• Collation of the Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE) and Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits (AMCB) tables.

Appraisal scheme costs 3.3. Scheme costs are used alongside scheme benefits to produce an overall BCR. A robust

approach to the estimation of scheme costs has been developed by Quantity Surveyors working in partnership with the Architect and PCC, and is based on the RIBA Stage 3 design of the scheme. Full calculations of the economic appraisal scheme costs are in Appendix K.

3.4. The build cost was estimated in 2014 using unit rates for carriageways, footways, drainage and street-lighting columns etc which have been taken from benchmarked values. The scheme costs are shown in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1 – Estimated scheme costs in 2014 prices

Item Description Scheme Cost

Contract Works

1 Substructure £141,182

2 Superstructure £2,034,781

3 Internal Finishes £202,433

4 Fittings £287,145

5 Services £314,720

6 Complete Buildings and Building Units £25,000

7 Works to Existing Buildings

8 External Works £1,418,087

9 Facilitating Works £736,243

10 Main Contractor's Preliminaries £567,555

Contract Works Sub-total £5,727,146

11 Project and design costs £353,005

Total £6,081,151

3.5. The scheme cost, including preparation, construction and supervision, is estimated to be £6.08million (2014 prices). A register of possible risks which could occur throughout the planning, design and construction of the Hard Interchange has been used to determine a mean Quantified Risk of £1.31 million, giving a risk adjusted cost of £7.4 million. The full risk register and QRA is attached within Appendix L.

3.6. WebTAG Unit A1.2 states that the recommended level of optimism bias (OB) for non-standard building schemes at the Programme Entry stage is 51%. The Treasury Green Book



supplementary guidance on OB provides a series of contributory factors on which this 51% is based. For each contributory factor, the level of uplift can be adjusted as and when supporting evidence for mitigation can be provided.

3.7. Table 3.2 provides a breakdown of the OB contributory factors, evidence of mitigation for reducing the uplifts at this stage of design and the remaining OB after mitigation. The OB applied to the scheme cost is therefore considered to be 17% equating to a cost of £1.1 million.

Table 3.2 – Breakdown of optimism bias and mitigation

Contributory factor Capital

Expenditure Mitigation

Factor Mitigation

Remaining Optimism

Bias

Procurement

Complexity of Contract

1% 0%

No contractor involvement to date. However PCC have significant

experience in delivering high profile construction projects and the design

works produced to date have incorporated findings of a number of

onsite surveys

1%

Late Contractor Involvement

2% 0% 2%

Poor Contractor Capabilities

5% 0% 5%

Dispute and Claims

Occurred 11% 0% 11%

Project Specific

Design Complexity

3% 90% The construction will take place on a

solid foundation block. 0%

Degree of Innovation

9% 85% No land contamination, nor

significant obstacles to be overcome 1%

Environmental impact

5% 100% Environmental appraisal undertaken

showing no significant adverse impacts

0%

Client specific

Inadequacy of the Business

Case 23% 85%

Output specification clearly defined. Facilities fully costed and itemised

3%

Project Management

Team 2% 75%

Fully experience PM team who have delivered schemes of significant cost

and complexity 1%

Poor Project Intelligence

6% 100% Ground investigation and structural surveys undertaken in advance of

scheme design. 0%

Stakeholders approval

2% 75% Stakeholders and operators fully

involved in design stages. 1%

Environment

Site Characteristics

1% 100% Environmental appraisal undertaken

showing no significant adverse impacts

0%

Planning approval

3% 25% Planning application submitted.

Significant pre-application consultation undertaken

2%

External influences

Economic 13% 75% Funding awarded to LTB in 2013. 3%

Legislation / Regulations

7% 75% RIBA design standards adhered to

and unlikely to change 2%

Technology 5% 85%

1%

Political 2% 85% Local councillors agreed on need for

scheme. Public consulted at stakeholder events.

0%

Total 100%

33%

Upper Bound of Optimism Bias

51% 17.0%



3.8. A spend profile for the duration of the scheme planning and construction has been assumed, and the costs have been converted to 2010 real values (in line with WebTAG) for use in the TUBA assessment and are shown in Table 3.3 below.

Table 3.3 – Spend profile of real costs in 2010 prices

Real Cost in 2010 prices (£,000) 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Total

Preparation £240 £241 £481

Construction £4,682 £2,363 £7,045

Supervision £515 £260 £775

£240 £5,437 £2,623 £8,300

3.9. The total cost of investment is therefore considered to be £8.3 million in 2010 factor prices. Table 3.4 shows how this cost is split between local and central government funding. Figures are shown as 2010 market prices and do not correspond directly to cash values of funding sought or committed.

Table 3.4 – Cost breakdown by source of expenditure in 2010 prices

Cost profile (£,000) 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Total

Dft £4,658 £4,658

Local Authority £240 £779 £2,623 £3,642

Third Party

£240 £5,437 £2,623 £8,300

3.10. The total costs have been factored to provide a Present Value of Cost (PVC) of investment of £8.5 million. This value is presented in market prices (inclusive of indirect taxation) so as to be comparable with scheme benefits and discounted to the base year of 2010. Table 3.5 presents the Public Accounts for The Hard Interchange Scheme.

Table 3.5 – Public Accounts Table

All modes Interchange

Local Government Funding TOTAL

Investment Costs £3,693,467 £3,693,467

NET IMPACT £3,693,467 £3,693,467

Central Government Funding: Transport

Investment Costs £4,830,601 £4,830,601

NET IMPACT £4,830,601 £4,830,601

Central Government Funding: Non-Transport

Indirect Tax Revenues £0 £0

TOTALS

Broad Transport Budget £8,524,068

Wider Public Finances £0

Appraisal method

Economic benefits

3.11. The scheme focuses primarily on improving access in and around the interchange site, without a significant anticipated impact on vehicle journey time and delay. As a result, the strategic multi-modal model for the area (SRTM) was considered inappropriate for calculating user benefits relating to pedestrian and cycle journey time. Instead, TfL’s Valuing Urban Realm Toolkit (VUR Toolkit) has been applied in order to capture and quantify the economic impact through estimating benefits to pedestrian and cycle journey times.

3.12. However, whilst the VUR toolkit has been used to facilitate initial calculations, further analysis was required to generate robust location-specific monetised benefits:



• The VUR Toolkit calculates monetised benefit based on Values of Time (a monetised cost incurred by users based on their journey purpose and travel mode) which were derived specifically for London by TfL and are not representative of the rest of the country. Forecast Values of Time have been taken from WebTAG (Data sheet A.1.3.2) and are seen to be equivalent to (on average) 75% of those in the VUR Toolkit;

• Trips by mode of travel have been assessed to accurately capture the variations in values of time between London and non-London trips in order to convert the benefit levels calculated by the VUR Toolkit into WebTAG compliant benefit levels. As no value of time for ferry users has been identified within WebTAG guidance, these trips have been conservatively valued in line with bus users;

• Local data on journey purposes suggests only around 5% of trips are for work purposes. Default purpose splits from WebTAG have been used to segregate the remaining trips between commuting and other journey purposes in order to apply the relevant values of time.

• Journey time benefits have been assessed for pedestrians and cyclists accessing The Hard. These benefits have been based on those users who enter or exit the facility, rather than those who are interchanging;

• Ambience improvements affect all users of The Hard, but are most beneficial to those who are interchanging from one mode to another;

• Where only a single forecast year has been generated, such as for benefits calculated through the VUR Toolkit, the level of benefit has been assumed to remain constant throughout the appraisal period, with only changes to the value of time applied;

• Journey time saving benefits have been assumed to accrue over a 60 year appraisal period. However, values for ambience benefits are considered more transient and the TfL guidance recommends these benefits calculated through its VUR Toolkit should be limited to a 15 year appraisal period. The scheme appraisal has therefore been set to 60 years, but with ambience benefits valued at zero beyond the 15th year. Benefits have been discounted to the DfT’s base year of 2010 to recognise the preference of benefits being generated sooner rather than later.

3.13. An additional assessment has been made to derive the impact of the improvements to passenger information and wayfinding within the bus interchange (as discussed in Table 2.1). When calculating the generalised cost incurred by all interchanging passengers at the Hard, the SRTM model includes a transfer penalty which is defined as a value of time taken by users. With the provision of new facilities such as the combined smart ticketing machines, real time passenger information and wayfinding included in the proposed design, this transfer penalty is expected to decrease.

3.14. No robust future data concerning changes in demand flows is available, so the 60 year impacts have been calculated using base year data. This represents a conservative estimate, since flows are expected to increase over time, meaning more people will experience the benefits generated by the scheme. The Brunel House development alone is predicted to generate over 300 bus and 200 rail trips every day. In addition to development, visitor numbers at the city’s main tourist attractions of Gunwharf Quays and the Historic Dockyard continue to grow every year.

Environmental benefits

3.15. The impacts of the scheme on the environmental indicators: noise; greenhouse gases, and air quality, have been assessed using a WebTAG compliant methodology and environmental impact appraisal.

Social benefits

3.16. Benefits associated with the improvements to journey quality have been undertaken in two ways.



3.17. A comparison of the existing and proposed pedestrian public realm environment, using the Pedestrian Environment Review System (PERS), has been undertaken. The PERS scores have been entered into the VUR Toolkit to derive a monetised value based on ambience factors.

3.18. Whilst the appraisal period has been set to 60 years, the appraisal period for the scheme has been set at 60 years, starting at the opening year of 2016. However, due to the nature of public realm schemes, no benefits have been assumed after 15 years.

Impacts on the economy

Economic assessment

Pedestrian journey times

3.19. Changes in pedestrian journey time (to and from the various onward modes represented in the interchange) resulting from the proposed scheme are a primary source of estimating monetised transport benefits.

3.20. The pedestrian journey time analysis considers travel to/from key origin and destinations identified in the Movement Analysis study contained within Appendix C.

3.21. Sample pedestrian origin-destination data (collected during the Movement Analysis study and factored to represent total observed interchange users), has been combined with travel distances measured using GIS software for the existing interchange layout to generate journey times on 24 different routes. The journey time values were calculated based on travel distance using a design travel speed of approximately 3mph for walking (1.2 m/s).

3.22. For the proposed layout, an examination of changes to layouts and crossing alignments has been used to determine the impacts the scheme will have on the pedestrian journey times. The demand for movements between origin and destination pairs has been assumed to be constant.

Table 3.6 Pedestrian journey time changes as a result of proposed interchange development

Origin Destination Route 12 hour flow

Journey Time (secs) Existing Proposed

Gosport Ferry Bus Station A 935 99 67

Gosport Ferry Rail Station B 658 20 20

Gosport Ferry Taxi Rank C 79 69 116

Gosport Ferry North Entrance D 627 116 116

Gosport Ferry South Entrance E 955 164 145

Bus Station Gosport Ferry F 563 99 67

Bus Station Rail Station G 301 88 51

Bus Station Taxi Rank H 64 79 68

Rail Station Gosport Ferry I 596 20 20

Rail Station Bus Station J 554 88 51

Rail Station Taxi Rank K 57 58 109

Rail Station North Entrance L 601 104 109

Rail Station South Entrance M 1019 152 128

Taxi Rank Gosport Ferry N 24 69 116

Taxi Rank Bus Station O 48 79 68

Taxi Rank Rail Station P 15 58 109

North Entrance Gosport Ferry S 825 116 116



3.23. Table 3.6 provides an existing/proposed comparison of pedestrian journey times and travel distances for each route. This results in an annualised weekday user travel time reduction of 529 person days and an associated increase in the economic value of the project benefits.

3.24. The most significant annualised journey time savings are as a result of the relocation of the bus waiting area in relation to the rail station and ferry terminal entrance. Additionally, facilitating shorter journeys to the southern entrance of the interchange area has a positive impact on a large number of users.

Cycle journey times

3.25. Cycle journey time is one measure of economic benefits generated from active travel modes as a result of a transport intervention. Appendix E contains a technical note on the calculation of cycle journey times and comparisons between the existing and proposed interchange layouts.

3.26. Journey distances for the five most common cycle routes within the existing interchange (Figure 3.1) were measured using GIS software. Observations of cyclist behaviour were made to understand the split of cycling and walking-with-cycle on the various routes, and travel times were calculated based on design travel speeds of approximately 3mph for walking and 12mph for cycling.

Figure 3.1 – Existing layout cycle journey time routes

3.27. The volumes of cyclists on each route were taken from the 2013 Movement Analysis study surveys. Applying these volumes to the measured journey times resulted in the calculation of Annualised Travel Time (in person days) for cyclists at the existing interchange.

3.28. For the proposed interchange design, the routes were updated to consider that cyclists are assumed to use the shared use facility for entry and exit into the interchange. These are shown in Figure 3.2.

3.29. Table 3.7 provides the assumptions and behavioural description for each route in the existing and proposed situations.

North Entrance Rail Station T 460 104 109

North Entrance Taxi Rank U 24 45 27

South Entrance Gosport Ferry V 950 164 145

South Entrance Rail Station W 1243 152 128



Figure 3.2 - Proposed layout cycle journey time routes

Table 3.7 – Description of cyclist behaviour by route Route Existing development:

Description and assumptions Proposed scheme: Description and assumptions

A Cyclists cycle up to the pedestrianised zone before dismounting.

Cyclists continue along The Hard and turn left into the interchange and continue on bicycle along the shared surface.

B Cyclists mount their bikes at the end of the pedestrianised zone.

Cyclists use the shared surface for the whole route.

C

Cyclists perform a no-entry violation and cycle up to the pedestrianised zone before dismounting.

Cyclists used the shared surface for the whole route.

D Cyclists cycle along the footway. Cyclists used the shared surface for the whole

route.

E Cyclists walk along the footway. Cyclists used the shared surface for the whole

route.

3.30. Table 3.8 provides an existing/proposed comparison of cycle journey times and travel distances for each route.

Table 3.8 - Cycle journey time changes as a result of proposed interchange development

3.31. Journey times were annualised using a factor of 253 to convert daily (12 hour) benefits to annual benefits, based on the five-day working week and excluding weekends and bank holidays, in order to capture the impact of journey time change on weekday travel. This results in an annualised weekday user travel time reduction of 18 person days and an associated increase in the economic value of the project benefits.

Route 12 hour flow

Journey Time (secs) Existing Proposed

A 276 42.6 58.7

B 534 34.6 32.5

C 12 23.1 32.5

D 61 21.9 32.5

E 154 98.0 32.5



Transfer penalty

3.32. The SRTM model includes a transfer penalty for all interchanging passengers at the Hard. The penalty includes the time taken to identify the location of the next stop, the time taken to buy a ticket and the time taken to walk between modes. It does not include the headway (waiting time), nor does it include the time taken to board the forward service. The transfer penalty calculations are contained in Appendix M.

Do nothing

3.33. For passengers interchanging between Ferry and Bus (and vice versa) the transfer penalty is set at 5 minutes per passenger. For Rail to Bus (and vice versa) that penalty is 7.5 minutes.

3.34. Twelve-hour passenger interchange data was extracted from the SRTM model for two forecast years (2019 and 2031) to account for growth in demand over time. Only those trips involving buses as part of the overall journey were considered for further evaluation i.e. rail to ferry (and vice versa) were excluded.

3.35. Default factors for journey purpose were taken from WebTAG and applied to the volume of passengers to derive the split between business, commuting and other uses. It has been assumed that, as regular users of the interchange, 50% of commuter users would already have taken advantage of combined or advance public transport tickets and have therefore been removed from further analysis of benefit.

3.36. The existing transfer penalties (taken from the SRTM) were applied to each group of users. For rail to bus (and vice versa) interchange, the 7.5 minutes transfer penalty was used; and for bus to ferry interchange, the 5 minute penalty was used.

3.37. Using an annualisation factor of 253; over a 60 year period the cost incurred by interchanging passengers as a result of the transfer penalties applied in SRTM has been calculated, under these existing conditions, as being £25.7 million PV.

Do something and sensitivity

3.38. To derive a reduction in transfer penalty resulting from the improvements to facilities at the interchange, Segmented Values of Bus Quality Interventions were taken from WebTAG Data book M.3.2.1 as shown in Table 3.9 below. These valuations of proposed measures provide a recommended reduction in generalised time that could be applied to transfer and boarding penalties when facilities are improved.

Table 3.9 – Segmented values of bus quality interventions (DfT)

Measure Value in generalised

minutes

Audio Announcements 1 1.22

CCTV at Bus Stops 3.70

CCTV on Buses 1.66

Climate Control 1 1.24

New Bus Shelters 1 1.08

New Bus with Low Floor 1.19

New Interchange Facilities 1.27

On-Screen Displays 1.90

RTPI (at bus stops) 1.47

Simplified Ticketing 0.84

Trained Drivers 2.46

3.39. The proposals for the Hard include several of these measures: new interchange facilities; on-screen displays; RTPI; and simplified ticketing. All other measures have been discounted from further analysis. The largest single benefit provided by the scheme is the reduction in walk time



between bus stops and the rail and ferry terminals, however the benefits realised from that have already been covered elsewhere in this assessment and are therefore not considered here.

3.40. For that reason, the expected reduction in generalised minutes in Table 3.9 would overestimate the benefits provided. A Do Something test has therefore been conducted which assumes a conservative 15% of the reduction in generalised minutes is achieved. A further sensitivity test has assumed 20% of the reduction in generalised minutes can be achieved. Table 3.10 shows the expected reductions in transfer penalty which can be realised as a result of the improvements to the interchange.

Table 3.10 – Segmented values of bus quality interventions (DfT)

Measure Segmented

value

Do something (15% of

segmented value)

Sensitivity test (20% of segmented

value)

New Interchange Facilities 1.27 0.1905 0.254

On-Screen Displays 1.90 0.285 0.38

RTPI (at bus stops) 1.47 0.2205 0.294

Simplified Ticketing 0.84 0.126 0.168

Total 5.48 0.822 1.096

3.41. The Do Something assessment suggests that a 0.55 minute reduction in transfer penalty could be achieved through the introduced facilities at The Hard interchange. When applied to the SRTM default values, this reduces the rail-bus penalty from 7.5 minutes to 6.7 minutes, while ferry-bus reduces from 5 minutes to 4.2 minutes.

3.42. The new transfer penalties have been reapplied to the passenger volumes to derive a new value for the cost incurred by interchanging passengers, and over a 60 year period this is calculated to be £22.5 million PV.

Present value of benefits

3.43. In each case of deriving benefits as a result of reduced cost incurred in journey time (whether through direct point to point travel time, or through a reduction in the cost of transfer penalty) they have been monetised based on values of time (benefits were disaggregated by user type, with separate figures for business, commuting and other users). This allows benefit types to be combined to give a Present Value of Benefit (PVB).

3.44. Benefits are calculated per year after construction and considered over a 60 year appraisal period (to 2075), then discounted to a 2010 base year and reported in 2010 prices:

• For business users, the proposed scheme’s improvement to accessibility and connectivity (from a reduction in journey time) is estimated to result in a monetised benefit over the appraisal period of £1.29 million PV;

• For commuters, the monetised benefit is forecast to be £1.79 million PV over the appraisal period; and

• For other users, the benefit is forecast to be £2.49 million PV over the appraisal period.

3.45. Cumulatively, this suggests that a PVB of £5.58 million (2010 prices and values) is generated by the new interchange design. In comparison to the PVC of £8.52 million (2010 prices and values), represents a Net Present Value (NPV) of -£2.94 million (2010 prices and values) and an initial BCR of 0.65:1.

3.46. As a sensitivity test, a 20% reduction in transfer penalty was tested and resulted in further benefits increasing the BCR to 0.75:1



Transport Economic Efficiency

3.47. Economic impacts from the proposed scheme are measured in terms of monetised benefits and costs, based on changes in travel times. The benefits to users and transport providers are presented in the Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE) table. The TEE table for the Hard Interchange scheme is shown in Table 3.11 (all presented in units of £000s at 2010 prices and values).

3.48. Travel time savings for transport users contribute to a total present value of TEE benefits of £5.58 million.



Table 3.11 – Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE)

All modes Road Bus and coach Rail Ferry

Non-business: Commuting User benefits TOTAL Private Cars and lgvs Passengers Passengers Passengers

Travel time £1,794,948

£34,209 £1,070,516 £690,223

Net non-business benefits: commuting £1,794,948 0 £34,209 £1,070,516 £690,223

Non-business: Other ALL

MODES ROAD

BUS and COACH

RAIL FERRY

User benefits TOTAL Private Cars and lgvs Passengers Passengers


£65,102 £1,313,008 £1,118,326

Net non-business benefits: other £2,496,435 0 £65,102 £1,313,008 £1,118,326

Business user benefits

Goods Vehicles

Business Cars & lgvs

Passengers Freight Passengers Passengers


£24,003 0 £899,208 £369,674

Subtotal £1,292,885 0 £24,003 £899,208 £369,674

Private sector provider impacts

Freight Passengers

Subtotal £0

Other business impacts

Developer contributions

Net business impact £1,292,885

Total

Present Value of Transport Economic Efficiency Benefits (TEE)

£5,584,268



Impacts on the environment

Assessment of environmental impacts

3.49. Where possible, an impact on an environmental indicator which can be defined as having a monetised value has been incorporated into the Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits (ACMB) Table 3.18. Otherwise, a qualitative assessment and score is shown in the Appraisal Summary Table in Chapter 6.

3.50. When formulating an initial BCR only the Noise, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases aspects of the environmental appraisal are considered. The remaining aspects are covered within the Qualitative Impacts in Chapter 4.

3.51. The full Environmental Scoping Report is contained within Appendix F.

Noise

3.52. A DMRB compliant noise assessment was carried out within the environmental scoping assessment of the proposed scheme. The noise aspect considers the effects of the proposed scheme on the noise climate and, where appropriate, any consequential annoyance within the vicinity of the scheme.

3.53. The first step in deciding whether an assessment should continue beyond the scoping stage is to identify if the threshold values are likely to be met or exceeded. For this assessment, traffic growth forecasts were applied to surveyed data to produce AAWT 18hr road traffic flow volume, and composition information for the existing year, the opening year (2016) and the future year (2031). To provide a robust assessment buses associated with the Tipner Park & Ride (opened since the surveys were undertaken) were added to the existing flows. In addition, an assumption was made about future bus growth which would be facilitated by the increased number of bus stands at the proposed interchange. The Park & Ride services (which started in April 2014, and two other extended services have been added to the existing bus flows. Table 3.12 identifies the predicted impacts of the proposed scheme against the do minimum scenario.

3.54. On The Hard main road, noise changes are not expected to exceed DMRB threshold values. The Hard main road is located immediately adjacent to The Kepples Head, and The Gieves Apartments, and runs between the noise sensitive receptors and The Hard Interchange. Given the levels of traffic on The Hard main road it is likely that this will remain to be the dominant source of noise at the nearby noise sensitive receptors, and this road will serve to mask activity noise from within The Hard Interchange to some degree.

3.55. Traffic Flows on The Hard Interchange access and egress roads are not predicted to result in changes in noise exceeding DMRB threshold values, and changes in noise levels within The Hard Interchange will likely either be dominated by road traffic noise from these access and egress roads, and The Hard main road, or will be highly localised to discrete points within The Hard itself.

Table 3.12 - Predicted Road Traffic Basic Noise Levels and Short-Term and Long-Term Impacts, LA10,18Hr (dB)

Lin

k

Exis

tin

g

DM

16

DS

16

DM

31

DS

31

Short Term Impact, (DS16-DM16)

Long Term Impact (DS31-DM16)

Do Minimum / No Scheme long-term Impact

(DM31-DM16)

A 69.2 69.3 69.6 69.5 69.8 0.3 0.6 0.3

B 66.3 66.3 66.8 66.4 66.8 0.5 0.6 0.1

C 66.4 66.4 66.8 66.4 66.9 0.4 0.5 0.1

E 67.9 68 68.3 68.3 68.5 0.3 0.7 0.4



F 67.9 67.9 68.2 68.2 68.5 0.3 0.7 0.4

G 66.3 66.3 66.4 66.7 66.8 0.1 0.7 0.6

3.56. The assessment indicates that the impacts arising from changes in road traffic noise and vibration on the local road traffic network are not expected to exceed DMRB threshold criteria. Road traffic noise and vibration impacts on the local road network were therefore scoped out from further assessment.

3.57. In terms of impacts to noise the overall appraisal is considered neutral.

Air Quality

3.58. In most urban areas, including Portsmouth, the main source of pollution is road traffic. Emissions from motor vehicle exhausts contain a number of pollutants including oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and particulate matter.

3.59. The local air pollutants of most concern are nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and small particles known as PM10 (particulate matter less than 10 micrometres in diameter). It is known from air quality assessments across the UK that these pollutants are the most likely to be present at concentrations close to or above statutory criteria, particularly in urban environments. The relevant local air pollutants requiring consideration are NO2 and PM10. The criteria that relate to these pollutants are summarised in Table 3.13.

Table 3.13 Relevant local air quality criteria

Pollutant Criteria

NO2 Hourly average concentration should not exceed 200 µg/m3 more than 18 times a year

Annual mean concentration should not exceed 40 µg/m3

PM10 24-hour mean concentration should not exceed 50 µg/m3 more than 35 times a year

Annual mean concentration should not exceed 40 µg/m3

µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic metre

3.60. The Highways Agency’s Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 11 Section 3 Part 1 (Air Quality)1 provides a method to determine the scope of the TAG air quality assessment. The DMRB scoping criteria require examination of traffic forecast data with scheme and without scheme scenarios for the opening year. Any road link that meets one or more criterion is scoped in as having potential to cause a significant impact, and is referred to as the ‘affected road network’ (ARN). The DMRB scoping criteria to define the ARN are:

• Road alignment changes by five metres or more;

• Daily traffic flows change by 1,000 annual average daily traffic (AADT) or more;

• Heavy Duty Vehicle (HDV) flows change by 200 AADT or more;

• Daily average speed change of 10kph or more; or

• Peak hour speed change of 20kph or more.

3.61. According to the DMRB guidance, there may be a change in air quality within 200m of roads affected by the Scheme. The changes in air quality may affect residential properties, other

1 http://www.dft.gov.uk/ha/standards/DMRB/vol11/section3.htm



sensitive receptors (schools, hospitals, elderly care homes), and designated ecological sites within 200m of affected roads.

3.62. Separate guidance on scoping air quality assessment for developments is given by Environmental Protection UK (EPUK). This guidance is not referred to by TAG but it is useful for scoping to indicate if potential changes in air quality are likely to arise. The EPUK criteria are as follows:

3.63. Proposals that will give rise to a significant change in either traffic volumes, typically a change in AADT or peak traffic flows of greater than ±5% or ±10%, depending on local circumstances (a change of ±5% will be appropriate for traffic flows within an AQMA), or in vehicle speed (typically of more than ±10 kph), or both, usually on a road with more than 10,000 AADT (5,000 if ‘narrow and congested’).

3.64. Proposals that would significantly alter the traffic composition on local roads, for instance, increase the number of HDVs (>200 movements or more per day) (professional judgement will be required, taking account of the total vehicle flow as well as the change).

3.65. Traffic changes have been determined from data collected on site and are given in Table 3.14.as thresholds have not been met.

Table 3.14 Traffic data for use in the air quality and greenhouse gases assessment 3.66. It can be seen that none of the road links meet any of the DMRB criteria shown above.

Considering the EPUK criteria, none of the road links, with the exception of the interchange access road, have a change in daily traffic flow of above 5%. The flow on this road is expected to change by 5.6% from 1,840 to only 1,940 AADT, which is well below the threshold of 5,000 AADT. Local air quality can therefore be scoped out of the next stage of TAG assessment as the proposed scheme will not affect beneficially or adversely affect local air quality as thresholds have not been met.

Table 3.14 Traffic data for use in the air quality and greenhouse gases assessment

Road Link 2016 Traffic Data 2016 DS- DN Change

DN AADT

DS AADT

DN HDV

DS HDV

AADT AADT % HDV

Hard (N) 7,029 7,210 1,339 1,505 180 2.5% 166

Clock S 103 103 0 0 0 0.0% 0

Hard (S) 6,651 6,760 851 948 109 1.6% 97

Interchange (Egress)

1,833 1,941 843 952 109 5.6% 109

Hard (N) 6,404 6,512 849 945 109 1.7% 97

Hard (S) 5,959 5,990 442 462 31 0.5% 97

Interchange (Access)

1,840 1,949 864 973 109 5.6% 109

3.67. In terms of impacts to air quality the overall appraisal is considered neutral.

Greenhouse gasses

3.68. DMRB regional scoping criteria Volume 11 Section 3 Part 1 was used to screen the traffic data provided. The criteria states roads that may have an effect on greenhouse gases released are expected to have:

• A change of more than 10% in AADT; or

• A change of more than 10% to the number of heavy duty/goods vehicles; or

• A change in daily average speed of more than 20km/hr.



3.69. Table 3.15 above shows that there will not be a change of more than 10% of AADT on any of the road links but that the change in HDVs will be more than 10% for all road links with the exception of the Clock southbound. On this basis, further assessment was required to determine the change in emissions.

3.70. The greenhouse gases assessment has been undertaken using the traffic data summarised in Table 3.14 above and in accordance with TAG Unit A3 Environmental Impact Assessment.

3.71. A summary of the greenhouse gases assessment is shown below in Table 3.15. Overall the scheme would increase greenhouse gas emissions which over a 60 year period would account for a cost of £14,305 PV to the scheme. This value does not alter the BCR of the scheme which remains at 0.65: 1. Portsmouth CC will continue work with the bus operators to apply environmental technology and carbon efficient vehicles to reduce this impact where possible.

Table 3.15 Results summary of the assessment of greenhouse gasses

Overall Assessment Score

Net present value of carbon dioxide emissions of proposal (60 year period)

-£14,305 (negative value reflects an increase in carbon emissions)

Quantitative Assessment

Change in carbon dioxide emissions over 60 year appraisal period (tonnes) (between ‘with scheme’ and ‘without scheme’ scenarios)

299

Of which traded 0

Change in carbon dioxide emissions in opening year (tonnes) 6

Qualitative Comments

Assessment performed using Defra EFT2013 5.2

For this assessment only non traded vehicle carbon dioxide emissions have been determined

The change in non-traded carbon dioxide emissions in 2016 = 0.000006 MtCO2e

The change in emissions between 2016-2017 = 0.000012 MtCO2e



The change in emissions over the 60 year appraisal period 2016-2076 = 0.000299 MtCO2e

Sensitivity Analysis

Upper Estimate Net Present Value of Carbon dioxide Emissions of Proposal (£)

-£21,835

Lower Estimate Net Present Value of Carbon dioxide Emissions of Proposal (£)

-£6,774

Social impacts 3.72. Where possible, an impact on a social indicator which can be defined as having a monetised

value has been incorporated into the Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits (ACMB) Table 3.18. Otherwise, a qualitative assessment and score is shown in the Appraisal Summary Table in Chapter 6.

Accidents

3.73. Accident data for the five years up to November 2013 was provided by PCC for the area immediately around the Hard Interchange (and is provided in Appendix N). The data shows that seven personal injury accidents (PIAs) were recorded in that time resulting in three slight, and four serious injuries.

3.74. Of these accidents, five involved pedestrians. However, in each case the cause of the accident was a failure to look or paying undue attention on the part of the pedestrians involved. The



scheme is therefore considered unlikely to be directly responsible for a reduction in accidents on the highway network.

3.75. Within the Interchange site itself, the operation of the bus layout has been designed to remove conflict between pedestrians, cyclists and buses. This has been achieved through centralising the bus waiting area and installing pedestrian screening to prevent non-vehicular access to the bus turning area. The reduced conflict between users significantly lowers the opportunity for accidents within the site itself.

3.76. Within the existing Hard Interchange site, pedestrian access from the rail station and ferry terminal to the bus interchange is severed by the access road used by taxi’s and private vehicles. In stakeholder consultation for the Portsmouth Harbour Station Travel Plan (in August 2013), users of the Hard Interchange mentioned safety concerns over the “free for all” nature of taxi parking in the interchange which included vehicles being parked on pavements thus forcing pedestrians into the road. The proposed layout will provide a dedicated taxi rank away from the interchange building and pedestrian desire lines, reducing the likelihood of conflict.

3.77. Vehicular access for deliveries to the rail station is provided with a dropped kerb at the north-east corner of the Interchange at the boundary with the Highway. Whilst this access will see vehicles use the shared pedestrian/cycle footway, agreement has been reached with Network Rail and South West Trains that any deliveries occur outside of times of peak usage, thereby reducing conflict with pedestrians and cyclists. A statement from PCC is included in Appendix O.

3.78. In terms of Accidents, the overall appraisal is considered to be moderate beneficial.

Journey quality

3.79. Journey quality is a measure of the real and perceived physical and social environment experienced while travelling. The factors that are considered within journey quality are an important influence on people when choosing a mode and method of travel.

3.80. Journey quality impacts cover a wide range of indicators and can be sub-divided into three categories:

• Traveller care – based on the general transport environment and facilities;

• Traveller views – the visual amenity provided by the site and impact on the surrounding visual environment; and

• Traveller stress – drawing on the perception of safety, security and confusion over onward travel or route choice.

3.81. Several indicators of journey quality have been covered elsewhere in this assessment and it is important to ensure these are not double-counted:

• A monetised benefit for pedestrian and cycle journey times is included within the Economic Appraisal section earlier in this Chapter; and

• Qualitative assessments of impact on traveller safety and security are considered in Chapter 4.

PERS assessment

3.82. The Pedestrian Environment Review System (PERS) is a ‘systematic process designed to assess the quality of the pedestrian environment within a framework that promotes objectivity’. The process can not only be used to assess the current level of service for pedestrians, but also as a method for auditing proposed schemes to anticipate their effect on overall level of service if implemented.

3.83. PERS has been used by Transport for London (TfL) and local authorities as an audit tool to assess the walking environment and has been used previously for assisting Business Case



development by assessing the infrastructure provision of links and spaces through placing scores on a number of established characteristics.

3.84. A PERS Audit was undertaken to ascertain the status of the pedestrian environment in May 2013. This has been validated based on the conditions observed in November 2013 and been updated to include the pedestrian crossing at the north of the study area, at the exit to the interchange; a busy north-south route through the site. Space audits of the existing and proposed development have also been undertaken. Appendix P contains a technical note detailing the full PERS audit, its methodology, assumptions and results.

3.85. The following study area has been identified and translated into comparable scenarios in both the existing and proposed cases (Figures 3.3 and 3.4) Audits of crossings and the bus interchange area have been used to support the economic case qualitatively.

Figure 3.3 – Existing layout – on-site PERS audit zones



Figure 3.4 – Proposed layout – Desktop PERS audit zones

3.86. Table 3.16 presents the finding of the existing and proposed PERS audit of pedestrian links within the interchange and suggests that there will be considerable improvements in almost all of the performance indicators as a result of the scheme.

Table 3.16 PERS audit of links

ID Scenario Eff

ecti

ve W

idth

Dro

pp

ed

Kerb

s

Gra

die

nt

Ob

str

ucti

on

s

Perm

eab

ilit

y

Leg

ibilit

y

Lig

hti

ng

T

acti

le

Info

rmati

on

Co

lou

r C

on

trast

Pers

on

al

Secu

rity

Su

rface Q

uality

User

Co

nfl

ict

Qu

ality

of

the

En

vir

on

men

t

Main

ten

an

ce

Overa

ll

Link 1 Existing Conditions -10 3 -1 -6 3 2 9 -9 3 5 3 10 -1 1 12

Link 2 Existing Conditions 10 6 3 -3 9 3 6 -9 3 -5 3 10 -1 1 36

Link 3 Existing Conditions 10 6 4 -3 6 3 9 -9 3 5 -3 10 -2 -1 38

Link 1 Proposed) 5 12 2 6 3 2 12 12 9 15 12 -5 3 4 92

Link 2 Proposed 15 12 3 6 3 2 12 12 9 15 12 5 3 4 113

Link 3 Proposed 10 12 2 3 3 2 12 12 9 15 12 -5 4 4 95

3.87. Table 3.17 presents the finding of the existing and proposed PERS audit of space (the bus station area) within the interchange and again suggests a considerable improvement over the existing interchange layout.

Table 3.17 PERS audit of spaces

Scenario

Moving in

the space

Interpreting the

space

Personal

safety

Feeling

comfortable

Sense of

place

Opportunity for

activity Overall

Existing -5 -3 5 3 3 1 4

Proposed 5 3 15 9 6 1 39



3.88. The findings of the PERS audit predicts that overall, the pedestrian environment will improve as a result of the proposed development. Effective width of footways, lighting, colour contrast, personal security and surface quality are generally predicted to be greatly improved following redevelopment of links. Similarly the sense of place, safety and comfort are all likely to improve when considering the interchange as a public space.

3.89. Positive economic impacts were therefore predicted to occur as a result of quantified improvements to the pedestrian environment using pedestrian environment review system (PERS) audits. The PERS analysis was input to the VUR toolkit in order to quantify the changes in user experience of the public realm as a monetised benefit.

3.90. Over the 60 year appraisal period (with benefits set to zero after 15 years) the quantified benefit was calculated as £7.3 million PV.

3.91. Added to the journey time benefits, this creates a PVB of £12.9 million (2010 prices and values) which will be generated by the new interchange design. In comparison to the PVC of £8.5 million (2010 prices and values), this represents a Net Present Value (NPV) of £4.4 million (2010 prices and values) and a BCR of 1.5:1 representing ‘medium value for money’ according to the DfT’s categorisation. The BCR is calculated from WebTAG compliant analysis of monetised costs and benefits only.

Assessment of visual amenity

3.92. Throughout consultation for the Hard masterplan, a repeated message given by the respondents was that the area and interchange projects a “shabby reputation”. In the interchange specifically, this reputation is as a result of the outdated and unmaintained interchange building (Figure 3.6), unattractive retail adjacent to the highway (Figure 3.7), caging and shelters (Figure 3.8) along the perimeter of the site which restrict views, guard railing and barriers.

3.93. Consultation with local business owners has highlighted that the visual environment of the interchange site inhibits the area’s attractiveness to visitors and customers. This results in not just a reduction in potential consumer spending in the area, but also negatively impacts on land values affecting landowners and potential developers.

Figure 3.5 – Existing National Express waiting facilities



Figure 3.6 – First floor of the interchange building

Figure 3.7 – Cafe adjacent to the highway

Figure 3.8 – Railings and shelter surrounding the site



3.94. The scheme design process has taken these issues into consideration, which has resulted in a modern permeable building with clear views (Figure 3.9) throughout.

Figure 3.9 – Views and permeability of the proposed interchange building

3.95. Whereas the existing interchange is cut-off from its surroundings (with fencing detracting from the views across the harbour to the east, and the single storey cafe building severing the site from the highway and surrounding land uses) the proposed design includes transparent walls and screening (Figure 3.10) thus generating a more open and inclusive feel.

3.96. Whilst the impact of the scheme’s design to the townscape and heritage has been covered in dedicated sections of this report (and found to be slight to moderate beneficial), the visual amenity of the interchange to its users should also be considered.

3.97. The design of the proposed interchange fulfils the objectives set out in the Hard Area SPD, not least in creating a sense of place, which is currently lacking at the site. Using similar developments as a benchmark, the Nottingham Station Hub quantified visual amenity benefits by means of a Stated Preference survey, resulting in an associated £20m PV. Given that The Hard is an area with significant footfall associated with it, and that there is significant scope to improve the visual amenity given the poor baseline quality of the area, a similar level of benefit could be assumed. Given the relative scale of investment, were a modest 10% of the Nottingham Hub benefits realised at the Hard, £2 million of Visual amenity benefits could be added. This has been included as a sensitivity test to evaluate BCR.

Figure 3.10 – Physical barriers to views have been removed

3.98. Whilst this potential benefit cannot be treated as robust, owing to the lack of quantified data, when applied as a sensitivity test it would result in an increased PVB of £14.9 million (2010



prices and values) is generated by the new interchange design and would lead to an adjusted BCR of 1.75:1.

Analysis of monetised costs and benefits 3.99. Table 3.18 summarises all the project costs and benefits which can be presented in monetised

form within the WebTAG AMCB sheet. The scheme delivers a positive Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) of 1.5:1.

Table 3.18 AMCB table

Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits

Noise - (12)

Local Air Quality - (13)

Greenhouse Gases -14000 (14)

Journey Quality 7300000 (15)

Physical Activity - (16)

Accidents - (17)

Economic Efficiency: Consumer Users (Commuting) 2300000 (1a)

Economic Efficiency: Consumer Users (Other) 1720000 (1b)

Economic Efficiency: Business Users and Providers 1210000 (5)

Wider Public Finances (Indirect Taxation Revenues)

- (11) - sign changed from PA table, as PA table represents costs, not benefits

Present Value of Benefits (see notes) (PVB) 12516000 (PVB) = (12) + (13) + (14) + (15) + (16) + (17) + (1a) + (1b) + (5) - (11)

Broad Transport Budget

(10)

Present Value of Costs (see notes) (PVC) 8524000 (PVC) = (10)

OVERALL IMPACTS

Net Present Value (NPV) 3992000 NPV=PVB-PVC

Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) 1.5 BCR=PVB/PVC



4. Qualitative impacts

Introduction 4.1. To supplement the monetised benefits created from a transport intervention, an assessment has

been made of further qualitative impacts which are identified in WebTAG for consideration in the overall Value for Money of a scheme. The non-monetised impacts of the intervention are concerned with the remaining environmental and social indicators outlined below:

• Environment:

o Townscape;

o Historic environment;

o Biodiversity; and

o Water;

• Social:

o Accessibility;

o Security; and

o Severance.

Impact to the environment 4.2. The remaining Environmental Aspects of the appraisal are used to define the adjustments to the

VfM category. None of these aspects result in a monetised value and, therefore, a qualitative assessment and score is shown in the Appraisal Summary Table in Chapter 6.

Landscape

4.3. Landscape in WebTAG is defined as a result of the physical and cultural characteristics of the land itself. As The Hard Interchange is entirely located within an urban townscape, all landscape issues are considered in the Townscape aspect of the Qualitative Impact.

4.4. The landscape aspect was therefore scoped out of further assessment and an impact defined as neutral.

Townscape

4.5. The townscape assessment has been undertaken using the visualisations of new building and plans of the layout produced by Atkins. The assessment has been undertaken in accordance with TAG Unit A3 Environmental Impact Assessment.

4.6. Table 4.1 identifies the impact of the scheme against each of the key indicators.

4.7. The results of the townscape assessment indicate that impacts range from neutral to moderate beneficial. Overall the scheme is considered to fit well into its surroundings and create a stronger sense of space than currently provided by the existing travel interchange.

4.8. In terms of townscape, the overall appraisal is considered to be slight beneficial to moderate beneficial.



Table 4.1 Summary of impacts to townscape Features Impact

Layout

Overall the layout of the proposed scheme is considered to be beneficial. This is due to reducing the requirement for pedestrians to cross the hardstanding for connections to buses, through locating the bus stops adjacent the new building. The layout is also beneficial for the relationship with HMS Warrior, through the removal of the panels adjacent Station Avenue. The layout will also benefit the Solent and better compliment Gunwharf Quays and the Spinnaker Tower. Slight beneficial (positive) effect.

Density and mix

The scheme would complement the existing density and mix by retaining a single building and large areas of paving. Neutral effect.

Scale

The scale of the scheme would replicate the scale of existing building, being two storeys and surrounded by pavements. The extent of proposed glass would reduce the mass of the built form, compared to the existing mix of concrete and glass. The extent of pavement reflects the existing scale of The Hard Interchange. Slight beneficial.

Appearance The appearance of the proposed scheme would enhance the existing townscape character at The Hard Interchange. Slight beneficial (positive) effect.

Human interaction

The proposed scheme would further objectives to regenerate the site and enable a sense of place for arrivals to the area. Moderate beneficial (positive) effect.

Cultural The proposed scheme would complement the cultural aspect of the site. Neutral effect.

Land use The scheme would complement the existing land use. Neutral effect.

Summary of character

On balance the proposed scheme is considered to have a slight beneficial (positive) effect. This is due to reducing the requirements for pedestrians to cross trafficked areas, the proposed building reducing the mass of the built form compared to the existing concrete form and the removal of the panelling along Station Approach. The areas of hard standing and public realm are considered to complement the existing layout and appearance.

Historic environment

4.9. The historic environment assessment has been undertaken using the visualisations of the new building and plans of the layout produced by Atkins. The assessment has been undertaken in accordance with TAG Unit A3 Environmental Impact Assessment.

4.10. There are three Key Historic Environmental Resources (KHERs) which had the potential to be affected by the scheme as follows:

• Gun Wharf Conservation Area

• The Hard

• The historic dockyard

4.11. The results of the historic environment assessment are summarised in Table 4.2.

4.12. In the case of each KHER, the assessment of impacts has been judged to be slight beneficial. Therefore, in terms of Historic Environment, the overall appraisal is considered to be slight beneficial.



Table 4.2 Summary of impacts to historic environment KHER Impact Gunwharf , HM Navel Base and St Georges Square conservation area

The scheme would improve the setting of the railway station by removing elements that impede the views towards the buildings on the east side of The Hard and towards the naval dockyard and HMS Warrior. The views of the railway and station are not significant and there would be no effect in relation to these views. Overall there would be a strong effect on the conservation area as a whole.

The Hard

The scheme would remove a lot of the clutter of structures of the bus station and detracting elements, such as the mesh clad walkway on Station Approach. The replacement building's design would be compact and of better quality than the existing bus station building. The removal of the bus station buildings nearest to the historic alignment of the Hard would improve the settings of the listed buildings and the appearance of the conservation area. There would therefore be strong beneficial effect.

Historic Dockyard

The Scheme would have a very low impact on significance. Views from within the KHER towards the Interchange Building are mostly 20th century, with the two storey bus and railway station buildings to the fore of the taller Gunwharf Quays Centre. Permanent views north along The Hard towards the KHER would not be affected. There would be a slight improvement in the setting of the KHER. During construction there would be a minor temporary adverse effect, from the presence of plant, with slightly beneficial permanent effects.

Biodiversity

4.13. The biodiversity aspect considers the effects of the proposed scheme on biodiversity and earth heritage (geological) features. The Hard Interchange is an entirely hard standing area devoid of any vegetation or biodiversity value. The proposals would have no affect on biodiversity which is confirmed by the Sustainability Appraisal of the SPD for The Hard. There are no geological features within the site or that would be affected by the proposed scheme.

4.14. The biodiversity aspect was therefore scoped out of further assessment and an impact defined as neutral.

Water environment

4.15. The water environment aspect considers the effects of the proposed scheme on surface and ground water quality, and flood risk.

4.16. Despite the close proximity to the water environment there is unlikely to be any adverse change to water quality as a result of the proposals. There will be no new sources of pollution during the operation of the proposals and standard control measures during construction would minimise any potential water pollution.

4.17. The proposals will result in no change to the area of impermeable surfacing so surface water volumes will be unchanged. Surface water runoff will be discharged to the same drainage network as the present Interchange. The quantity and quality of surface water drainage will remain unchanged.

4.18. The Hard Interchange is located in an area designated by the Environment Agency as very low risk from flooding. This is the lowest possible flood risk and means that each year, this area has a chance of flooding of less than 1 in 1000 (0.1%).

4.19. The water environment aspect was therefore scoped out of further assessment and an impact defined as neutral.



Social-distributional impact

Accessibility

4.20. The Hard Interchange scheme will provide the potential for future bus network expansion through increasing the number of bays in comparison to the existing. Whilst the operators intend to undertake a thorough review of services with the intention of supporting the planned developments in the Hard Masterplan Area and the City centre, for commercial reasons at this time they are not in a position to publicly quantify any increase and assessment cannot be carried out.

4.21. Therefore, in terms of impact to the accessibility the overall appraisal is considered neutral to slight beneficial.

Security

4.22. During public consultation workshops conducted during preparation of the Hard Area SPD, residents, visitors and business owners expressed concerns over a perceived lack of security and fear of crime in and around the Interchange site.

4.23. Of most concern to respondents was that anti-social behaviour coupled with a lack of staff/security presence created an unpleasant and unwelcoming environment, particularly during hours of darkness.

4.24. The PCC Community Warden Service have indicated that there are existing issues of anti-social behaviour and aggressive street begging (Figure 4.1) at the Hard Interchange, particularly around the existing building and walkway to the rail station and ferry terminal.

Figure 4.1 – Street begging at the Hard Interchange

Appraisal of the existing site

4.25. The site is bounded by the Portsmouth Harbour Railway Station, railway line and the Gosport ferry terminal to the south and Portsmouth Harbour waters to the north. To the east the site is bounded by The Hard (B2154) single carriageway road.

4.26. The view across the Portsmouth Harbour waters is currently obstructed by a mesh metal fence and canopy structure. The canopy structure is approximately 3m high and runs along the majority of the site’s northern boundary to provide shelter to those waiting for buses or taxis etc. A low concrete retaining wall (~0.5m high) sits at the bottom of the mesh metal fence.



4.27. The east of the site is bordered a single-storey brick takeaway cafe and toilet-block building and guard railing, which runs along The Hard (B2154) within the site. The covered walkway between the cafe and the toilet block isolates pedestrians and hinders surveillance across the site.

4.28. Approximately two thirds of the southern boundary of the site is bounded by single storey rail station buildings, along with the entrance to the rail station and ferry terminal. The remaining third is bounded by the railway line and platform canopy structure, which sits at the height of a single storey building. Whilst the entrance to the rail station will be improved in conjunction with the interchange building, it is expected that the rest of the boundary view will remain unchanged.

4.29. Vehicular access to the site is made at a priority junction at the south-east corner of the site, with egress at the north-east corner. Vehicular circulation through the site is via Station Approach which loops around the back of the interchange linking the access and egress. Two pedestrian accesses from the highway are located in a gap in the guard railing and through a covered gap between the cafe and the toilet block, respectively. These routes allow pedestrians to enter or exit the site through the bus stands. The site can also be accessed by foot at the Portsmouth Harbour Railway Station and the Gosport ferry terminal. The location of these entrances and exits will remain largely unchanged by the proposals but would be improved aesthetically.

4.30. The current interchange building is spread over 2 storeys (with semi-accessible roof space) s and has a restaurant, waiting area and toilets situated on the first floor. This design separates passengers and visitors over a number of levels, reducing the ability for good surveillance from retailers and others in each case. Similarly, the interchange building and takeaway cafe and toilet-block have underpass areas within each building, creating recesses and obstructions that hinder surveillance. Lighting is provided across the current site but it is not to daylight standard and in particular some signs are not well lit and the recess areas remain dark and unwelcoming.

4.31. The current Hard interchange building has very poor provision of emergency phones and help points or public telephones. There is currently little provision for help of information on emergency help procedures, particularly outside of daytime hours.

4.32. There is no CCTV available across the site. The current two storey Hard interchange building and the single storey takeaway cafe and toilet-block building hinders surveillance across the site. The buildings physically divide the passengers and visitors into distinct, separate areas across the site.

4.33. The landscape of the site is to remain largely unchanged following the proposals. The site will remain flat which helps with visibility and surveillance across the site.

Appraisal of the proposed site

4.34. The proposals are to have two entrances/exit points along The Hard (B2154). Both of the entrances/exits would be for vehicles/cyclists and pedestrians, with respective designated routes for each mode type. The proposals will have clearly marked exits with routes demarcated for each mode type. The proposals will particularly benefit vulnerable users such as older people and children.

4.35. The proposals are to replace the imposing canopy structure and concrete wall with a glass screen to allow for a clear, unhindered view of both the harbour area and the proposed pedestrian and cycle path along the sea edge. Additionally, It is proposed to that the single storey takeaway cafe and toilet block building is removed to enhance visibility across the site. It is also proposed that the guard railing is removed at this point and replaced with a glass screen in an alternative location one road back into the site. These measures will improve the ability to see across the site perimeter, improving natural surveillance across the site.

4.36. The proposals would provide a CCTV system across the site. Additionally, by placing the proposed bus station concourse and retail facilities on the ground floor, rather than over two floors as they are currently, there will be additional staff surveillance in one large, main location. By having one large single storey concourse building, passengers will predominantly be grouped into a single location, thus increasing the ease of formal surveillance. This is expected to counter the issues of street begging and anti-social behaviour in the location (A letter of support from the



Community Warden Service is included in Appendix Q) and the increased sense of security is expected to benefit vulnerable users such as women, children, and older people.

4.37. The proposed single storey open plan concourse will encourage closer proximity of retailers with passengers and visitors, improving levels of informal surveillance. Additionally as the new building will be made predominantly of glass, coupled with the use of glass screens in place of guard rails across the site, the potential for informal surveillance will be enhanced. The proposals will particularly benefit vulnerable users such as women, children, and older people.

4.38. The proposals feature good designs that avoid the use of recesses, which would facilitate easier formal surveillance to take place. Daylight standard lighting would be provided across the whole site, which would better highlight signage and information points.

4.39. The proposals will include provision for emergency phones, help points and public telephones within the concourse building. As the concourse building contains retail units and other facilities there will be staff available to provide emergency related help and information at ground level. The proposals will particularly benefit vulnerable users such as older people.

Conclusion

4.40. Table 4.3 summarises the respective changes in security indices following the introduction of the scheme. It is considered that those benefitting most from the security improvements would be women and older people.

4.41. Therefore, in terms of impact to the security the overall appraisal is considered large beneficial.



Table 4.3 Assessment of personal security indicators

Security Indicator and element of entire journey

Performance for security indicator Relative importance of each indicator [B]

(High/Medium/Low) (=3/2/1) Weighted score for each indicator [C] =

[A] * [B]

Without scheme

With scheme

Change (0/+1/+2)

[A] All Users Older people Women All Users

Older people

Women

Access on foot from origin to the public transport stop

Moderate Moderate 0 Medium Medium Medium 0 0 0

Site perimeters, entrances and exits

Moderate High +1 Medium Medium Medium 2 2 2

Formal surveillance

Poor High +2 Medium Medium High 4 4 6

Informal surveillance

Poor High +2 Medium Medium Medium 4 4 4

Landscaping Moderate Moderate 0 Medium Medium Medium 0 0 0

Lighting and visibility

Poor High +2 Medium Medium High 4 4 6

Emergency call Poor High +2 Medium Medium High 4 4 6

Staffing of facility Poor High +2 Medium High Medium 4 6 4

Public transport journey between the boarding and alighting stops


Access on foot from the alighting stop to destination


Total security improvement score [D] = ∑[C]n 22 24 28

No of users affected (<500 users / day is low, >10,000 is high) [E] 16,000 4,000 6,000

Overall assessment of security impacts (all users and vulnerable groups) Large Beneficial

Large Beneficial

Large Beneficial


Severance

4.42. Severance is defined as the separation of users from facilities and services created by barriers to movement, be they infrastructural or a heavy flow of vehicles.

4.43. The current site features four “fingers” which house the bus stands. Each finger includes guard rails (Figure 4.2) to prevent unauthorised pedestrian movement. There are two breaks within each row of guard rail to accommodate designated pedestrian crossings that run from the highway through to the interchange building. Similarly, the eastern site edge, facing The Hard, is also bounded by guard railing and the takeaway cafe and toilet-block building. The guard railing creates a physical barrier to movement across and through the site and some pedestrian routes are considered to be unattractive, as pedestrians are required walk through the busy bus station bays, crossing a number of internal roads in the process.

4.44. Furthermore, pedestrian access from the rail station and ferry terminal to the bus interchange is severed by the access road (Figure 4.3) used by taxi’s and private vehicles. In stakeholder consultation for the Portsmouth Harbour Station Travel Plan (in August 2013), users of the Hard Interchange mentioned safety concerns over the “free for all” nature of taxi parking in the interchange which included vehicles being parked on pavements thus forcing pedestrians into the road.

Figure 4.2 – Existing pedestrian guardrail

Figure 4.3 – The internal vehicular access road



4.45. It is proposed that the whole site design will be amended and both the guard railing and cafe/toilet building will be removed from the site. The Hard Interchange Movement Analysis report demonstrates that only relatively low levels of pedestrians use the two sets of pedestrian crossings that run through the site. By removing the cafe and toilet-block building adjacent to the highway there will be few reasons to require a direct pedestrian route through the site. The displaced movements could be suitably and easily accommodated by the main proposed routes in and out of the site.

4.46. The proposals identify that one row of glass screens will be placed within the site, one road back from The Hard (B2154). The row of glass screens will be used to prevent pedestrians from walking into the busy bus parking area when accessing the taxi rank.

4.47. Overall the proposals are considered to improve severance levels over the current provision by increasing pedestrian permeability through the site. The proposals are considered to have a ‘slight’ level of severance because whilst people wanting to make pedestrian movements will be generally able to do so, it is recognised that there will be some hindrance to pedestrian movement by the glass screen at the taxi rank. This screen will be installed for safety reasons to prevent pedestrians from walking through the busy bus parking area, where buses will be constantly parking and reversing throughout the day. Removing the need to use the multiple internal pedestrian crossings will be of benefit to vulnerable users such as disabled and older people.

4.48. The current site design has a ‘moderate’ level of severance because pedestrian journeys can be indirect and unattractive as the result of the significant amount of guard railing and the number of pedestrian crossings situated across the site.

4.49. Input to the scheme design has been made from the Portsmouth City Council Equalities & Diversity team to ensure that access for disabled and visually impaired users has been considered. A letter of support has been provided by the Equalities & Diversity team and is included in Appendix R.

4.50. Therefore, in terms of impact to the severance the overall appraisal is considered slight beneficial.



5. Strategic benefits

Introduction 5.1. The previous chapters have detailed how the Hard Interchange scheme will have a net impact on

the efficiency of the transport system as well as environmental and social impacts on the site itself and the immediate surrounding land use. In addition to these impacts, the scheme is of significant importance in a strategic economic context and will create jobs, not just through the construction and operation of the interchange, but also as it will kick-start the regeneration process within the wider Hard Masterplan area.

5.2. The Solent LTB Assurance Framework requires the calculation of direct and indirect jobs created as a result of the scheme and defines those as follows:

• Direct jobs are those employed directly as a result of the investment. This may include temporary jobs (e.g. in construction), which should be clearly identified in the form with an indication of the period over which these jobs will continue;

• Indirect jobs are those employed in the wider economy as a result of the transport investment (Including within the supply chain). These may include jobs created on new development sites which would have remained undeveloped if the project was not implemented.

5.3. For the purposes of this VfM, direct jobs will be considered as those generated by the construction and operation of the Hard Interchange site only. Those jobs generated in employment sites in the wider Hard Masterplan Area are to be considered indirect jobs.

Strategic economic impact

The Hard Interchange site

Job creation

Hard Interchange construction employment

5.4. In accordance with the guidance from the LTB, the estimate of construction jobs is based on 12.5 Full Time Employee (FTE) jobs for every £1 million spend on physical infrastructure. Given the estimated outturn cost of constructing the new interchange of £6.729 million, this would generate 83 FTE construction jobs over 15 months.

5.5. In addition to the above construction jobs, further indirect jobs would be supported locally and regionally through supply linkage and income multiplier effects. This includes local firms supplying construction materials and equipment and construction workers spending part of their wages in the local economy. Assuming a composite multiplier of 0.44 at the regional level (English Partnerships Additionality Guidance (2010, Table 4.12)), the construction of the scheme could indirectly support a further 37 jobs regionally.

Hard Interchange operational employment

5.6. First Hampshire, Dorset & Berkshire Ltd operates 9 bus services from the Hard Interchange and has been a key stakeholder in the design of the layout and facilities to be provided by the proposed scheme.

5.7. There will be significantly enhanced facilities for operational staff on site as a result of the new scheme. New controller facilities will enable the creation of two staff jobs (2 FTE) located on site. By locating them at the Hard, the role of the controller will allow for a number of improvements in customer engagement and communication. Operational supervision allows for any disruption to services to be managed effectively and promptly to reduce service delays and improve the transport links at this important gateway to the City. The travel shop will also create 3 FTE jobs that will provide face to face ticket sales and travel information.



5.8. First are planning to review the level of services provided to the area and will endeavour to increase the level of services in line with the site capacity and to match customer demand generated by the developments in the Hard Masterplan Area. However, as this review has yet to take place there can be no robust value placed on jobs that this may create.

5.9. Stagecoach operate bus services out of The Hard and where and fully support the rejuvenation of the facilities provided in this proposed design. Whilst they are not able, at this stage, to provide a forecast of additional services and staff which would result from the scheme, they have indicated that should the supporting infrastructure be developed, they would be more willing to commit their own investment,

GVA

5.10. For construction GVA, the Solent LTB Assurance Framework suggests that a value of 37% be applied to the total construction cost. An outturn construction cost of £6.729 million would therefore generate £2.49 million of GVA from construction.

5.11. For the purposes of calculating GVA generated through new jobs associated with the operation of the bus station, benchmark data for administrative and support service activities taken from the 2012 Annual Business Survey has been applied to the 5 FTE jobs created by First Hampshire, Dorset & Berkshire Ltd. The five direct FTE jobs created will generate a GVA of £0.2 million.

5.12. The total GVA created through direct employment associated with the operation of the Interchange is therefore considered to be £2.69 million.

Development in the Hard Masterplan Area

Job creation

5.13. Chapter 2 introduced the eight sites identified within the Hard Masterplan Area which together will provide a mix of land uses including residential, employment, commercial, leisure and hotels.

5.14. Table 5.1 summarises the type and scale of development on each site. Where possible (sites 3 & 8), this information has been taken from submitted planning applications. In all other instances this information has been provided by Portsmouth City Council in consideration of the Hard Supplementary Planning Document.

5.15. In order to forecast the expected number of jobs created within the masterplan area, typical values of full time employees (FTE) per square metre of area (taken from the HCA’s Employment Densities Guide - 2010) have been applied to the scale of development for each site. In line with the Solent LTB Assurance Framework, all of these jobs are considered as indirect employment.

5.16. In order to forecast the expected number of jobs created within the masterplan area, typical values of full time employees (FTE) per square metre of area (taken from the HCA’s Employment Densities Guide - 2010) have been applied to the scale of development for each site.

5.17. It is assumed, however, that 50% of all jobs created through retail, office and leisure businesses which would occupy the sites would be displaced from elsewhere in the region (rather than be new start-ups or businesses currently based outside the region). However, no displacement of hotel jobs from elsewhere has been assumed given the shortage of hotels in the city. The Portsmouth Hotel Futures Report (2007) showed that there is a need for 12-15 new hotels in Portsmouth, in order to increase the amount of visitors (particularly mid-week) and provide much needed accommodation for business visitors

5.18. In addition to permanent job creation, further jobs would be supported locally and regionally through supply linkage and income multiplier effects, i.e. relating to purchases made as a result of the development and further purchases associated with linked firms alongside the supply chain as well as local expenditure as a result of those who derive incomes from the direct and supply linkage impacts of the development. A composite multiplier of 0.44 has been used for estimating supply linkage FTE, and this value has been taken from the English Partnerships Additionality Guidance (2010, Table 4.12).


The Hard Interchange Business Case – Value for Money Statement – 14 May 2014 50

Table 5.1 Hard Masterplan Area development sites and job creation

Site Land use class Floorspace m

2

/units

Employment densities (m

2 or

unit) FTE (gross) FTE (net) Supply linkage FTE

1 Ordnance row arches A3 340 18 19 9 4

2 Rosemary Lane garages C3 20

3 Brunel House

A1 1213 17 71 36 16

C3 (residential) 329

C1 (student housing) 512 50 10 10 5

4 Havant Street car park N/A

5 Former PALL Europe building B1 10000 12 833 417 183

C1 (hotel 3*) 80 2 40 40 18

6 Queen Street A1 1120 17 66 33 14

B1 4480 12 373 187 82

7 Former Naval academy C1 (hotel 4/5*) 100 1 80 80 35

8 Boathouse 4

D1 (educational) 1900 36 53 26 12

D1 (exhibition) 1200 36 33 17 7

A3 280 18 16 8 3

Totals 1595 862 379



GVA

5.19. Table 5.2 provides a summary of job creation by land use class associated with the developments within the Hard Masterplan Area. Benchmark data for each employment sector has been extracted from the 2012 Annual Business Survey and used to estimate the Gross Value Added per employee resulting from the Hard Masterplan Area developments.

Table 5.2 GVA created through the Hard Masterplan Area developments

Land use class Jobs created Per capita GVA Total GVA

A1 99 £18,985 £1,875,924

A3 11 £18,985 £212,635

B1 (Professional) 434 £60,682 £26,360,092

B1 (Support) 434 £38,692 £16,807,774

C1 217 £18,985 £ 4,120,504

D1 62 £26,168 £1,622,431

£50,999,360

5.20. Table 5.2 shows that the successful redevelopment of the Hard Masterplan Area would result in a net GVA benefit of £51 million.

5.21. Without the investment to the interchange, kick-starting the regeneration of the Hard, this level of private sector investment is unlikely to occur for a further 5 to 10 years. As detailed in Chapter 2, land owners of the sites have made clear that the feasibility of developing is intrinsically linked to a commitment on the part of Portsmouth City Council to improve the viability of the area through investment in an attractive, modernised Hard Interchange. Specifically, the owners of Brunel House and the Former Pall Europe sites have provided statements confirming this opinion. Taking the Brunel House and the Former Pall Europe sites in isolation, the GVA benefits from those alone would be worth £32 million. The improvements to the Hard Interchange are therefore crucial to the immediate progression of growth in Portsmouth and the Solent region.

Housing

5.22. In addition to job creation, kick-starting the redevelopment of the Hard Masterplan Area through investment in the interchange will have a positive impact on residential growth. As shown in Table 5.1, approximately 350 new residential units are associated with the developments at Brunel House and the Rosemary Lane garages. The land owners of both sites have provided supporting statements indicating that investment in the Hard Interchange is essential before development is feasible.



6. Value for Money assessment

Benefit cost ratio 6.1. The analysis contained within Chapter 2 suggests that the Hard Interchange scheme will

generate a PVB of £12,922,012 made up of:

• £1,213,606 PV resulting from a reduction in cost associated with journey time for business users;

• £1,724,192 PV resulting from a reduction in pedestrian and cyclist journey time for commuters;

• £2,312,559 PV resulting from a reduction in pedestrian and cyclist journey time for other users;

• -£14,305 as a result of the increased greenhouse gasses emissions; and

• £7,352,049 of journey quality benefits resulting from improved public realm

6.2. Further analysis was conducted on noise and air quality however the impact was deemed to be neutral in each case and no monetised benefit was produced.

6.3. This PVB compared against the PVC of £8,524,068 and will generate a BCR of 1.5:1.

Qualitative assessment 6.4. Further social and environmental benefits have been derived from qualitative assessment, and

whilst these will not provide a monetised benefit for use in this appraisal, the impacts are taking considered when deriving the Value for Money presented by the scheme:

• The impact to Townscape is considered to be slight beneficial to moderate beneficial;

• The impact to the Historic Environment is considered to be slight beneficial;

• The impact on Biodiversity is considered to be neutral;

• The impact on the Water Environment is considered to be neutral;

• The impact on Accidents is considered to be moderate beneficial;

• The impact on Accessibility is considered neutral to slight beneficial;

• The impact on Security is considered large beneficial; and

• The impact to Severance is considered slight beneficial.

Strategic impact assessment 6.5. Whilst not being appraised benefits as defined by WebTAG, as they are not direct impacts on

public accounts, the impact of the scheme on the local economy will be substantial:

• Construction of the interchange will deliver 81 direct and 37 indirect supply linkage FTE jobs creating a GVA of £2.48 million;

• The redeveloped and expanded services of the public transport operators will deliver at least 5 direct and 2 supply linkage FTE jobs creating a GVA of £0.2 million;



• The interchange is anticipated to kick start regeneration of the Hard Masterplan area creating 862 operational and 379 supply linkage FTE jobs generating a GVA of £51 million; of which £32 million can be associated two Masterplan sites which have been linked by the landowners to the public sector investment in the Hard Interchange;

• The Masterplan area will also include 350 new residential units;

• Network Rail have committed to investing in the upgrade of facilities at Portsmouth Harbour Station which will complement the work undertaken at the Interchange. This will further improve journey quality. However, Network Rail states that these works are unlikely to be progressed unless the investment in the interchange is assured.

The Appraisal summary table 6.6. The quantitative and qualitative assessments of impacts made in the previous three sections

have been input to the Appraisal Summary Table (AST) provided in Appendix S.

Key risks and sensitivities 6.7. Since the final submission of the LTB application PCC have progressed with the planning and

management required for being in a position to complete the scheme (when funding is received) by March 2015. A programme detailing the process to completion has been adopted and maintained.

6.8. All key risks to the scheme have been dealt with in the formulation of a risk assessment which has been subjected to a Quantified Risk Analysis. The adopted QRA suggests a mean value of £1.3 million should be applied in considering the financial risk at this stage of scheme development. This value represents 21.7% of the total scheme costs (excluding optimism bias). The QRA included the analysis of several risks which could have the potential to increase scheme construction costs.

6.9. Furthermore, in line with the guidance in WebTAG and the Treasury Green Book a mitigated optimism bias of 17% has been applied to the estimated scheme costs.

6.10. Given the inclusion of variable construction cost in the risk register and QRA, an appropriate sensitivity test would be to derive the BCR were a lower optimism bias to be specified. WebTAG identifies an optimism bias of 4% to be applied to non-standard building schemes which have full approval; applying this value to the scheme costs would reduce the PVC by £0.84 million, to £7.68 million and result in a BCR of 1.6:1.

Value for Money 6.11. Reiterating the Solent LTB’s Statement of Principle:

“The Solent Local Transport Body will prioritise its allocation from the devolved major transport scheme funding stream on transport investments that have no identified funding source and that deliver measurable and significant economic benefits to the Solent economy in terms of growth in employment or that safeguard employment, drive new residential and employment development, or an increase in GVA. Transformational opportunities will take priority. Transport schemes will provide clear evidence of value for money, be deliverable within the 2015-19 period and be identified and developed proportionately in accordance with DfT WebTAG guidance.”

6.12. In Chapter 1, four key objectives for the scheme were identified with the intention of justifying the scheme in line with the Solent LTB’s statement. In each case, the evidence provided within this report identifies how these objectives have been met thus justifying the scheme’s Value for Money on investment.



Key objectives of the Hard Interchange scheme

1 Kick-starting the regeneration of the Hard Masterplan Area and contribute to economic growth of the Solent region;

��

2 Provide sufficient public transport capacity to meet any future demand;

��

3 Deliver a safe and attractive point of entry to the City’s key tourist area; and

��

4 To provide benefits to transport users, easing their journeys through reducing travel time and improving their experience.

��

6.13. The evidence provided within this report proves that whilst the monetised benefits which can be deemed to be having an effect on the public accounts can only provide a Medium VfM category based on BCR, when the significant local economic, environmental and social benefits are added the scheme should be considered to be representing a High Value for Money.

© Atkins Ltd except where stated otherwise. The Atkins logo, ‘Carbon Critical Design’ and the strapline ‘Plan Design Enable’ are trademarks of Atkins Ltd.

Dunstan Westbury Atkins United Kingdom - Epsom - Gateway [email protected]

The Hard Interchange Business Case Value for Money Statement · Figure 3.6 – First floor of the...

Documents

Transcript of The Hard Interchange Business Case Value for Money Statement · Figure 3.6 – First floor of the...